POINT PLEASANT BEACH — The Point Pleasant Beach council adopted an ordinance Tuesday revising requirements for tree removal and replacement within the borough, which led to a wider public discussion regarding property rights and possible amendments to the newly revised text.
Specifically, the ordinance lays out revised regulations for the application process and tree removal and replacement process within Point Pleasant Beach. According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the model ordinance was promulgated to preserve the role of trees in “the mitigation of stormwater runoff issues such as soil erosion, pollutant reduction and infiltration.”
The application fee for tree removal is $25, up from $10. The new application rules state that any person planning to remove a street tree, with a diameter of 2.5 inches or more or any non-street tree with a diameter of 6 inches or more on their property must submit a tree removal application to the borough.
The ordinance uses the term diameter at breast height (DBH), which means the measurement is taken at 4.5 feet off the ground.
No tree shall be removed until borough officials have reviewed and approved the removal. The borough shall respond to any such application request within 10 days of filing.”
The ordinance, which was tabled at a previous council meeting, was adopted by a 4-2 vote. Council members Mike Ramos, Arlene Testa, Caryn Byrnes and Art Gant voted “yes,” while Council President Rosa Crowley and Councilman Jack Pasola voted “no.”
Prior to the ordinance’s adoption, members of the public made comments in favor and against the new rules.
Resident Kitty Stillufsen urged the council to adopt the revised rules, suggesting that being in line with state standards could lead to opportunities for the borough, including grant money to help with flood mitigation.
“If we don’t pass this tree ordinance tonight, then we are not going to be in compliance with the state’s requirement that allows us to have a stormwater runoff permit,” said Stillufsen. “If we do not have this permit, the consequence is pretty grave for us because we will not be eligible for many dollars of grant money that we need specifically to help remediate flood problems in this town.”
Shade Tree Commission Chairwoman Anne Lightburn spoke during public comment in favor of the ordinance, calling it “reasonable.”
“I just want to be here to encourage you all to vote ‘yes’ on (the ordinance). I think it’s important,” she said. “If you don’t pass this one, you’ve got to pass a different one. I think you’ve done a good job, I think it’s reasonable and I know everybody’s concerned with property rights, but it’s out of our hands to stand on that soapbox.”
Resident Dave Cavagnaro took issue with some of the wording of the ordinance, saying that he believes it infringes upon the rights of property owners to remove trees they deem to be detrimental to their property, regardless of their status as a “hazard tree.”
“Under the exemptions, it says, ‘residents who remove less than four trees’ — that’s three, two or one, not four — ‘per acre of land,’” he said. “When I read this, if I don’t have an acre of land, I can’t take down the trees…If you say ‘per acre,’ 99% of the property in Point Pleasant Beach is not an acre.”
Cavagnaro suggested changes to the revised rules, specifically a one-to-one tree replacement ratio and a larger removal allowance of five trees per year. He also emphasized that adopting the model ordinance as a whole was not required by the state; the only parts of the model ordinance which towns are mandated to adopt are a “removal and replacement” element and universal applicability to private and public property.
“That’s it,” he said. “Everything else in this ordinance is your choice. I don’t question your authority to do it, but if somebody says this is state-mandated, it is not.”
Borough Attorney Michael L. Collins responded first to Cavagnaro, conceding that the model ordinance is not a mandate, but offering the fact that, in some ways, the model ordinance is less restrictive than the section of borough code before revision.
“I agree with your point that DEP’s guidance does allow some level of discretion provided the ordinance meets some of the terms,” Collins said. “I think from the borough’s perspective, it already has a pretty strong ordinance on tree removal. Comparing the two ordinances, in some instances, I would argue the model DEP ordinance is actually less stringent than the current borough ordinance. The current borough ordinance contains fewer exceptions than the DEP’s; I actually don’t see an exception for one, two or three trees within a five-year period. And so, any tree right now is subject to permitting unless it’s an emergency.”
Councilman Pasola agreed with Cavagnaro, saying, “I’m not comfortable at all. I think Mr. Cavagnaro and (resident) Mary Steiner brought out great points; I agree with them,” he said. “We’ve got too much damn government telling people what to do. And I don’t mean so much Point Beach — the state, the federal government come in, ‘You’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do that;’ too much government…I think we should table this and take into consideration everything that’s been said tonight and make a lot of major changes.”
Mayor Doug Vitale, however, disagreed, saying that the ordinance should be passed then and there and, if any changes are to be made, they be discussed at length among council members and borough officials first.
“I think we should pass this,” he said. “I think just getting it on the books and making any minor changes would be my recommendation, instead of again pushing this off…Although nobody’s called the DEP, we’ve consulted with our professionals, our committees. My suggestion is that we pass it, and then we can work with our borough attorney to make minor changes.”
Council President Crowley, however, agreed with Pasola’s sentiment that the residents had brought up convincing points about the perceived restrictiveness of the rules, specifically those governing the number of trees allowed to be removed.
The vote was then taken and the ordinance was adopted 4-2. Immediately after, Councilman Gant made a motion to introduce an amendment to the ordinance that would establish a one-to-one ratio of removed trees to replaced trees, regardless of their size.
“I’m OK with passing it tonight to get it going, but I would really like to amend it right away; a tree for a tree. It’s your property; you should be able to do whatever you want on your property,” said Gant.
This amendment vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. Council members Pasola, Crowley and Gant voted “yes,” while council members Ramos, Testa and Byrnes voted “no.” For the first time in his term, the tie was broken by Mayor Vitale’s “no” vote and the motion to introduce the amendment failed.
Before voting “no” on the amendment introduction, Councilman Ramos explained that he was open to changing the specific regulations, however was not comfortable adding such a stipulation “on the fly.”
“I’m not against adapting the ordinance,” he said. “This seems very on-the-fly, (like) ‘Let’s Make a Deal;’ and this council’s gotten in a lot of trouble in the past by doing that. I think we need to spend a little bit of time on this, and I think we need to have a little more open discussion about this and come to an understanding of what’s allowed.”
Councilwoman Testa agreed with his assessment of an ad hoc amendment, saying, “I understand both sides; I am all about making a compromise. But I feel, right now, just to on-the-fly make this decision without talking further, I don’t feel comfortable with.”
The full text of the ordinance and the appendix regarding acceptable replacement tree species can be found at pointpleasantbeach.org/223/New-Ordinances .
This is an excerpt of the print article. For more on this story, read The Ocean Star —on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition.
Check out our other Point Pleasant Beach stories, updated daily. And remember to pick up a copy of The Ocean Star —on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition .
Subscribe today! If you're not already an annual subscriber to The Ocean Star , get your subscription today! For just $38 per year, you will receive local mail delivery weekly, with pages and pages of local news and online access to our e-edition on Starnewsgroup.com.
Local News
