Council tables new rules on removal of trees

Measure described as being on right track, but several changes recommended

By: Marjorie Censer
   The Princeton Borough Council on Tuesday tabled an ordinance that would tighten restrictions on homeowners who wish to remove live trees from their properties. Though council members said the ordinance is on the "right track," they recommended several changes.
   The ordinance, as proposed, would decrease the number of trees a homeowner can remove annually as of right from four to two, require permits for the removal of any tree greater than 16 inches in diameter, and better explain the standards for approval or denials of tree-removal applications.
   The ordinance pertains only to live trees — dead, dying or dangerous trees are exempt from the regulations.
   Councilman David Goldfarb said the permit requirement for all large trees was too onerous.
   "It is unreasonable for people to have to get a permit for every single large tree," he said. "Ninety-five percent-plus of the permits are going to be granted for perfectly valid reasons."
   Mr. Goldfarb expressed concern that homeowners would be delayed by the borough bureaucracy.
   Members of the Princeton Borough Shade Tree Commission, as well as members of the public, appeared at the meeting to speak on behalf of the ordinance. Eric Tazelaar, chairman of the commission, said the previous ordinance was not doing enough to protect trees.
   "We’ve seen continued evidence of individual homeowners virtually clear-cutting and changing the nature of the streetscape," Mr. Tazelaar said. "This would give us overview and input."
   David Tolman of Library Place called borough trees "an important resource."
   "A tree that’s halfway across the city gives me value, and when that tree is gone, I lose from that," he said. "I would encourage the council to strengthen the ordinance and protect this resource that belongs to us all."
   Mr. Goldfarb suggested eliminating the absolute protection of trees 16 inches or greater in diameter and instead limit the number that can be removed annually.
   But Mr. Tazelaar opposed that change, arguing he would rather increase the size of absolutely protected trees to 17 or 18 inches in diameter than see Mr. Goldfarb’s suggestion implemented.
   "I think that would be giving in too readily," he said. "Saying that you have absolute right on a tree — if it’s one or two a year — is saying we have no control over these trees."
   Councilman Andrew Koontz praised the ordinance, but suggested several changes — particularly in the wording of certain sections.
   "I think you’re moving in the right direction here," he said. "The ordinance as it existed before was probably too liberal."
   Members of the council said they would like to see mechanisms by which borough residents would be alerted to the restrictions.
   The council tabled the ordinance and asked the commission to discuss and possibly incorporate the council’s suggestions.