BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer
UPPER FREEHOLD — Planning Board members have reservations about new tree ordinances proposed by the Township Committee this month.
At the committee’s request, Planning Board members reviewed one of two proposed ordinances that aim to regulate the planting and cutting down of some township trees at the board’s March 22 meeting.
Township forester Richard Bentz explained the ordinance under review. He said it would regulate the removal and preservation of trees in minor and major subdivisions and site plans. He called the ordinance a first step toward saving the environment in Upper Freehold because forestry fits into watersheds and watershed management.
“The township has really dedicated itself to preserving open space and agriculture,” Bentz said. “This ordinance is a natural progression, to preserve the natural resources on lands.”
The second ordinance, which the board did not review that night, concerns the removal and regulation of trees under private ownership.
Under the provisions of the first ordinance, Bentz said developers would receive tree-removal permits on a per-tree basis. He compared this measure to an impact fee, as the township is protecting resources.
To obtain the permits, a subdivision applicant would need the name of the property, the owner and the location, as well as a survey of the forest land that would have to include the species and size of the tree.
The survey, Bentz said, would help the forester tell if the tract is relatively healthy, as some species define poor health in a forest.
A developer would also have to identify all specimen and historic trees, steep slopes, stream corridors and other bodies of water on the property in the survey, and establish a 300-foot riparian buffer.
“Forests are the biggest recharge areas because the soils are compacted,” Bentz said.
Under the provisions of the ordinance the board reviewed, according to Bentz, the first tree removal for a development would take place only to clear rights of way, easements and similar areas. After that, a developer would need additional permits for tree removal on house lots.
Permits would be good for a year. If a developer does not do anything within that time frame, he or she could renew the permit at a $50 annual fee for up to three years. If a developer does not complete tree removal within three years, Bentz said, the whole process would start again.
The ordinance also includes a provision for revoking permits in the event of false applications or noncompliance.
There are also mitigation factors in the ordinance. For every removed tree measuring 6-12 inches in diameter, three similar trees would have to be planted.
For every tree with a diameter of 25 inches or greater, five trees with a caliper of 2.5 to 3 inches would have to replace it.
Developers could offer some of these mitigation trees to the township for planting on municipal, park and recreation areas. However, if a site could not be found, builders would owe the township the difference, at a price of $750 per tree.
Chairman Richard Stern called the $750 fee per tree “outrageous.” He also objected to the 300-foot riparian buffer, noting that the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) only requires a 100-foot buffer.
Mayor Sal Diecidue called the buffer a minimum standard, saying that the township would like to protect more of the corridor.
Stern also did not like the fact that nurseries and orchards were exempt from the proposed ordinance, but other agricultural uses were not.
When board member Joe Toscano said that horse farms don’t incorporate a large number of trees and should be exempt, Bentz said that issue was addressed in the second ordinance.
Bentz said the two ordinances should have been combined into one document.
“To be two ordinances is wrong,” Bentz said. “If you enact a law, it must be universal across the population.”
Toscano agreed with Bentz, saying, “If you separate [the ordinances], things’ll fall through the cracks.”
Bentz said the high price of replacing trees may “make developers think twice.” He added that under an ordinance similar to the one being reviewed by the board, Monroe Township in Middlesex County has a tree trust fund that now contains $1 million for tree replacement.
He said it took Monroe seven years to create its ordinance, which has been challenged twice in court with the township winning both times.
Board member and Township Committeeman Stephen Fleischacker said two ordinances did not mean that one group of property owners would be treated differently from another group. However, he said the driving force behind the first ordinance seemed to be a change in land use, whereas the second ordinance addressed existing land uses and property rights.
“The goal is to avoid the historic conflict of property rights and tree preservation,” Fleischacker said.
Fleischacker said board members were concerned whether the ordinance they reviewed would hold up in court.
Board member J. David Holmes said he never witnessed the indiscriminate removal of trees in the township. He said the township needed a simple, concise ordinance and that the ordinance was “much bigger than we need.”
Board member William Search said the clear-cutting of the Woods Development on Sharon Station Road was the catalyst for the ordinance.
Fleischacker said if the consensus of the board was that the proposed ordinance was too complex, then board members should decide what to take out and what to keep.
Board members recommended that Board Attorney Frank Armenante review the ordinances and report back to them.
A public hearing on the first ordinance is scheduled for the April 7 Township Committee meeting. The public hearing on the second ordinance is scheduled for May 5.