During the meeting, a participant expressed significant frustration with the lack of communication from Vince Orlando, the engineer overseeing the Harvey View Park project. They emphasized their effort to engage with him directly, only to be met with avoidance. The participant criticized the planning process. They argued that the rationale for removing most of the trees was insufficient, questioning the necessity of such extensive changes to the park’s landscape, which they described as “bulldozing.”

The proposed plan includes planting 50 new trees, intending to replace the removed ones on a two-for-one basis. However, the participant raised concerns about the choice of species, particularly the gray birch, noting inaccuracies in the height projections provided in the plan. They highlighted that these trees typically grow taller than stated, potentially affecting the park’s future appearance and ecosystem. The participant urged the commission to consider the broader implications of the plan, stressing the importance of preserving trees within the community.

In response, a representative involved in the park’s redevelopment efforts explained that the city had been developing these plans over the past year, incorporating recommendations from the Shade Tree Commission. They confirmed that a tree inventory had been conducted and reassured attendees that the new plantings would exceed initial resident requests.

The conversation shifted to the commission’s advisory role in city projects, with members underscoring that the ultimate authority rests with the city council. They clarified that while the commission could provide input, city projects might proceed independently of its recommendations. Participants were encouraged to direct any concerns or feedback to the city council and mayor, as the commission itself does not hold final decision-making power.

Community involvement and communication emerged as a central theme throughout the meeting. Another participant, Rich Ellis, questioned whether the revised plan would be subject to further discussion by the Shade Tree Commission or proceed without additional input. The response highlighted the procedural limitations faced by the commission.

Beyond the park discussions, the commission addressed other tree-related matters across Cape May. A focus was on the removal of a dead mimosa tree at the Siri condominiums on New Jersey Avenue. Described as a “weed tree,” the motion to remove it received unanimous support.

Budgetary considerations also surfaced, with a member advocating for increased funding for tree trimming in the next budget cycle. They noted the aesthetic improvements resulting from previous trimming efforts and emphasized the importance of proactive maintenance alongside removal processes. While there was general agreement on the necessity of trimming, budget constraints posed a challenge, prompting the suggestion to revisit the matter in future discussions.

Public comments further underscored the community’s tree-related concerns. A resident from Washington Street highlighted difficulties in coordinating the removal of dead trees on a property line, citing unsuccessful attempts to engage a neighboring property owner. Meanwhile, another resident, David King, expressed gratitude for the commission’s dedication to tree preservation but voiced frustration over the state of Harbor Cove Park. He criticized the lack of community input in park renovation plans, calling for better communication and collaboration with residents.