|
December 2003
Tree Ordinance
BY CRAIG STONE
On November 10, the Takoma
Park City Council passed a number of revisions to the controversial
tree ordinance that make it easier for residents to get rid
of dying trees or trees that are designated as undesirable
species.
Under the old ordinance, residents who were granted permits
to remove trees were required to replace a percentage of those
trees, which was based on the size and condition of the trees
being removed. The new ordinance cuts those percentages in
half, which makes it more manageable for residents to remove
unwanted trees.
The revisions also allow residents to remove potentially
hazardous trees before they actually become a danger, as well
as trees of harmful species.
However, not all of the revisions make it easier to get
rid of trees. Property owners are now required to contact
the city arborist before doing anything that might harm a
tree, and people who are granted permits to remove trees must
now post those permits for a full week before the work is
done. The old ordinance required that permits be posted "during
the proposed activity."
Also, following the demand from residents for more frequent
updates, the city arborist is now required to submit a quarterly
report to the City Council on applications and permits granted.
This used to be required only once a year.
Ward 1 Councilmember Joy Austin-Lane requested that,
in addition to quarterly reports, the applications and permits
granted be updated on the city's Web site as they occur.
"We don't have a very good mechanism by which we
get information out to the public," Austin-Lane said.
"I'm hoping that we can come up with a way to provide
that information in as timely a way as possible."
City Arborist Brett Linkletter said that he could provide
the information, but that it is someone else's responsibility
to actually put it on the Web site.
Linkletter also said that "if someone wants this
information, all they have to do is come into public works
and ask for it." He added that residents could request
the information via e-mail, letter or phone call as well.
Residents waited in City Hall until 12:30 a.m. until
public comment was allowed so they could speak out against
the revisions.
Catherine Tunis requested that the council not make any
changes that would make it easier for residents to cut down
trees, and said that the proposed ordinance was not "ready
for prime time."
Mar-E Robnett of Maple Avenue argued that the outgoing
council should not have voted on the ordinance. "I am
concerned that the council is rushing to pass a flawed and
incomplete tree ordinance using the rationale that you wish
to finish something you've started," she said. "With
50 percent of you being replaced next week, half of the new
council will be saddled with a problematic ordinance not of
their making."
Ward 3 Councilmember Bruce Williams dismissed the notion,
saying that he had wanted to change the ordinance for over
two years. "I don't need my motivation questioned for
wanting to do it in a timely fashion, and I think more than
two years is long enough," he said.
"While campaigning in the last campaign, I've talked
with people more about the tree ordinance than I have probably
any other issue in the time I've been on the council,"
Williams said, "and the near unanimous reaction is 'please
get this over with, please finish it, the changes you're making
are ones that we agree with.'"
Ward 5 Councilmember Marc Elrich also defended the Council's
decision to go ahead with the vote. "I don't think there's
been a shortage of public input or a shortage of opportunities
for public input. So I think it's a mischaracterization to
say that the council's ignored public input or hasn't had
adequate public input or that this council is hurrying to
do anything."
Austin-Lane offered a slight dissention, saying that
the times that were given for community input were very early
and very late in the process, so citizens were not really
involved at times when they could be influential.
She also said that this is by no means the end of the
changes to the tree ordinance, stressing the need for tighter
enforcement and suggesting an incentive plan for residents
who plant trees. "I'd like us to have incentives—that
will make people more likely to plant trees and have a forest
on their property instead of a lawn," Austin-Lane said.
Mayor Kathy Porter closed by saying that the revisions
make positive changes to the legislation. "It fundamentally
changes our process," she said. "It makes it, I
believe, easier for our residents to get in on the front and
have somebody explain to them what is going on. It makes it
easier to remove trees that ought to be removed while keeping
the strong protections in place for healthy trees and for
trees that are not of undesirable species."
Porter also said that she thinks "it will be a big
improvement in the way the city deals with people who have
concerns about trees."
December 2003
|
