| Author |
Message |
    
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | 
|
Here are some old news I found in the "New York Times" of 3/16/03. I pass this information here, with the hope that Alan, Mark, and Patrick pass in on to the rest of the BoT.
The government of Monroe Township, in Middlesex County, NJ, “passed, five years ago an ordinance requiring developers to get a permit before removing trees over a certain size (measured by its girth). The permit is accompanied by a requirement that the developer does an approved amount of replacement planting and pay a fee determined by the town into a “Tree Trust” that finances other tree replacement (and maintenance) programs. In the last year that trust has raised $500,000. When the NJ Builders Association went to court to complain that the law discriminated against developers … Monroe broadened the law to cover anyone who would cut down such tree”.
I imagine the ordinance provides for the policing of it and that it imposes some penalties for the violators.
Does South Orange have such ordinance, or something like it? If not, shouldn't we? When Monroe Township, a rural community 25 +/- miles from Manhattan, adjacent to the Thompson County Park, passes such an ordinance, why couldn’t we? It’s not too late to save what is left of our trees.
Eric
|
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6213
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I believe we're the clearcutting capital of Essex County. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 927
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
Dave: I think you should go check out Livingston. They have us and almost every town in the state by a long shot.
Eric: I will get a copy of the monroe township document and see if we can put something similar in place. Sounds like a reasonable idea.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 454
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
Standing at the top of FLoods hill this weekend, I realized there are many gaps around the perimeter where old growth trees have died (maybe a dozen or so).
THis ought to be a priority for SO this coming year -- plant news trees around Floods hill!
Relatively low cost -- but in 10 years -- we'll be very glad that they are there.
BTW -- a shade tree ordinance is a great idea. My parents live in Middletown, NJ -- their neighbor cleared a number of 100 year old trees (to build a golf range!) -- was fined and had to plant new trees.
Pete |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 928
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:42 am: |
|
Pete: There is already a committee reviewing all the parks including the trees. There are plans for some new trees to be planted.
|
alison
Citizen
Username: Alison
Post Number: 88
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:15 pm: |
|
I believe Maplewood has such an ordinance. My understanding is that you need a permit to cut a tree over a certain size.
Maplewood in general values its trees. When baseball fields were enhanced in Maplecrest Park, people came to town meetings to protest the cutting down of a particularly beautiful tree. The town found a way to enhance the field in question and save the tree.
You dont get as many people in Maplewood saying that new trees will be just as good as old ones -- or that (as happened in discussions of the animal shelter) the trees in question are just weedlike and don't matter.
The bottom line is that our towns are what they are, in part, because of their old gracious trees. Planting a new decorative tree which will only grow to 20 feet is not a substitute for old oaks, maples and tulip trees which are 50-95 feet tall, and took decades if not a century or more to grow.
It's about priorities. It sometimes sounds as if South Orange thinks anything new is good, and that anything old can be replaced. You can't, in my lifetime, replace old trees. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 930
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:24 pm: |
|
alison: Just for the record, Maplewood is a partner in the animal shelter.
At the old Ward homestead in Maplewood, many old trees were taken down with the full permission of the township so they could build winchester gardens. It was private property and they got their approval from the planning board.
The old trees at flood's hill died and were not taken down. |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Mark,
Thank you for offering to bring the issue to the attention of the rest of the BoT. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
I agree with Alison, however, that South Orange is notorious for not acknowledging the value of our trees and the need for their preservation. This is true for our BoT, for our Planning Board, and for a few of our residents. The Village government has treated the people who have expressed an interest in preserving the natural beauty of South Orange as groups of outsiders, radical extremist tree-huggers: to wit the Farrell Field Neighbors Association and the Coalition to Preserve South Orange. In both cases citizens have been maligned, labeled as nimbys and tree-huggers, and the Administration has gone out of its way to discredit those individuals who went against the BoT’s wishes for development and deforestation.
I hope you can reverse that trend. We live in an era when we are endangering our environment with urban sprawl, and yet our Village is blind to this danger, and keeps feeding the sprawling monster.
Anything you and your colleagues at the BoT can do to stop that will be appreciated, at least by those of us tree-huggers, all 1300+/- of us who voted for the Open Space Trust Fund.
Thank you again for your continued presence here.
Eric |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 931
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Eric: I have never said one negative word about the CPSO or the FFNA. I stated in public that the planning board should not have approved taking down so many trees by the shelter.
I have also stated that there is nothing wrong with NIMBY being a legitimate excuse. I did not want "The Top" built (I live two blocks from there) and Maplewood allowed it (and about 100 trees came down with that monstrosity). Surely you remember how Maplewood refused to listen to the complaints of people who lived nearby and they allowed a high rise on top of a hill to cast a shadow far greater than anything that has been or is proposed in S. Orange.
Livingston has allowed thousands of trees to come down since I move to NJ 17 years ago. You are correct that urban sprawl is the issue but we have not allowed houses to be torn down and rebuilt as condominiums (as other towns have). If anybody disputes the number I will give them all the places where houses have replaced trees.
|
softparade
Citizen
Username: Softparade
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
INHO it was criminal what occurred at the old Grunnings site- a pristine area and million dollar view should have been preserved- instead the then Maplewood Township and Zoning Board rezoned the area- then approved the building of that eyesore on the mountain- I understand that one or more of the prior Township committee members live there at The Top- making one question the legality of the entire process-
alas it is too late to do anything - and what is going on in Livingston is too awful for words! |
Howard Levison
Moderator
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Mark, what ever happened to the "Tree" preservation proposal that Eric offered up? Can this come before the Board or can Ed prepare a draft ordinance for discussion? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 972
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:17 pm: |
|
I had asked Patrick to discuss it at his next committee meeting (he chairs the public works committee). I will pass on the link to him with a reminder. |
susan1014
Citizen
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 84
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:18 pm: |
|
I love the trees of SOM, as we all do, but do want to inject a note of reality here, having had two of our lovely old trees fall on my house/yard in the 7 years that we've lived here. Both had been inspected by tree services (one in our yard, one in our neighbors). Both did thousands of dollars of damage (much not covered by insurance), and left us feeling lucky that the damage wasn't much worse!
Quite a few of the trees that were planted when these houses were built are past their primes. It is our responsibility to keep our lovely towns green, but some of the old trees are going to go.
Tree preservation is a wonderful goal, but please be careful not to make it too hard to remove trees that need to be removed. What might be nice is some counsel and support from the town on planting replacements to make sure that our town is lovely 50 and 100 years hence! |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Excellent. These good intentions will pave the road to hell quite nicely. Bwah hah hah...
|
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 8:42 pm: |
|
I wish that this thread does not get buried in the archives of this board, and I respectfully ask the Village trustees who have a presence here to address this issue.
I read somewhere in this board that "South Orange has a tree ordinance". The Code of South Orange does not protect all trees. There is, in the Code a "Chapter 149, Trees and Shrubbery" (copy attached), but it only applies "to the maintenance, care and removal of all trees located in the tree belt". A "tree belt" is defined in the Code as "all areas between the property line and the adjacent curb or adjacent paved edge of any public street".
We know that Monroe Township, in Middlesex County, requires developers to get a permit before removing trees over a certain size measured by its girth. I have received from a friend a copy of the tree ordinance of the Borough of Closter (copy attached), which also regulates private real property trees. If South Orange is to preserve one of its major assets, those majestic trees of ours, what will it take to enact an ordinance protecting our trees? I address this question to Messrs. Joyce, Rosen, Rosner.
Eric |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:42 am: |
|
Eric: As I mentioned to you at the meeting last month, I passed your first post to Trustee Joyce who promised to discuss the issue at his next DPW committee meeting.
I will forward your links to him and ask him if it was discussed. At the conference agenda meetings (second Monday of each month) each committee member reports on what their committee discussed.
|
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Thank you mrosner.
Trustee Joyce,
Would you please bring this issue at your next Public Works Committee meeting and let us know the results? When is the next PWC meeting? Is it open to public comment?
Thank you,
Eric |
Howard Levison
Moderator
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I would be interested in seeing this posted on the SO Web site - re: Committee Meeting agenda and minutes. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 90
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:48 pm: |
|
If you want to protect the trees, would you also mandate by law proper pruning, feeding, care and maintenance of the trees on private property as well? How about shrubbery?
|
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:22 pm: |
|
The extent of the tree protection would be left to those who would write the ordinance, after they review Codes of other municipalities and follow their example, and after they get public input. We are not re-inventing the wheel here; tree protection ordinances have been tested in Codes around New Jersey. Let's learn from them. Any kind of ordinance protecting our trees, similar to those of other municipalities, would be an improvement over no ordinance at all. South Orange does not have any such ordinance.
Eric |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 7:14 pm: |
|
The Trustees' Public Works Committee, headed by Patrick Joyce, is scheduled to meet this Thursday, March 11, at 3:00 pm. I plan to attend and introduce the idea of a Tree Ordinance for South Orange, with the purpose of protecting one of our greatest assets, our trees, from indiscriminate elimination. I invite those who want to support the idea to attend the meeting as well. The way I understand the process: if the Committee choses so, they will make an introduction to the BoT in support of an ordinance, the BoT will hear the public's comments on it, and then they will vote.
Eric
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
S.O.Code-Trees