BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer
Millstone MILLSTONE – A venerable tree mistakenly cut down by a contractor has to be replaced before the township grants any more construction permits for a new retail building going up on Route 537.
The Millstone Township Planning Board unanimously made this decision regarding the Kensington Organization’s 6,363-square-foot retail building at its Sept. 13 meeting.
The developer’s attorney, William Mehr, told the board an agent of his client inadvertently cut down a large black oak tree that had been marked for preservation on the site plan and had a fence around it. Mehr said the township issued a stop-work order for the site after the incident.
Mehr said he spoke to the township’s Shade Trade Commission (STC), which said it wanted a certified tree expert or forester to appraise the tree that had been cut down.
Mehr, who had photographs of the tree stump, said the tree was diseased, with substantial rotting in the interior. He said his client would like an independent tree expert to appraise the value.
While his client intends to replace the tree, Mehr said there is no provision in the township’s ordinances about what must be done if a tree is mistakenly removed.
Mehr said his client has posted cash bonds that cannot be released until the tree is replaced. He said his client would like to proceed with construction.
Planning Board Chairman Mitchell Newman pointed out that the site plan clearly has the words “To Remain” written on two trees located on the Route 537 tract. The oak tree near the road is still there, he said, but the one that was about 80 feet from the road was cut down.
Board member George Zanetakos said it bothers him that the tree was obviously marked and yet still taken down. He said he wants the builder to realize he should have been more diligent. He recommended that the replacement tree have at least a 5-inch caliper, which refers to its thickness.
Board member Christopher Pepe noted that a 5-inch caliper black oak is “pretty expensive.”
When Mehr said the replacement tree would not necessarily be put in the same location as the tree that was removed, board member Manny Blanco objected, saying that is where it is supposed to be.
Zanetakos said the tree may have been taken down deliberately and that he does not want to reward the developer. He suggested that local nursery owner Chet Halka be consulted regarding what kind of tree would be the largest reasonable size to survive in the location.
Blanco said the large tree taken down had value. He suggested that the largest diameter tree that is practical should replace the former tree with any difference in value going toward paying for trees in other township locations.
Township Engineer Matt Shafai said the STC has decided that the money paid for replacing the tree could be used to plant additional trees in town.
Township Planner Richard Coppola said that the stump and root system of the former tree must also be removed.
Blanco said the stop work order should remain until another tree is planted.
“It’s a message to developers [not to] take down a tree we said not to take down,” he said.
When Mehr protested that the tree was already diseased, Blanco asked who took the photographs of it.
“Where is the chain of evidence?” he asked.
Zanetakos suggested that the developer plant two trees and the township forget about contacting tree consultants.
“[The developer] can get back to work and learn a lesson,” he said.
The board ultimately unanimously agreed that the developer should plant a replacement tree and two additional ones at the discretion of their consultants. No further permits on the site will be issued until the trees are planted.
The replacement tree must have at least a 6-inch caliper, while the other two need to have at least a 3-inch caliper.
The board’s vice chairman, Donna Haag, also said she wants the conservation easement on the site plan clearly delineated.