A central topic of the meeting was the examination and potential revision of the town’s tree ordinance, specifically Appendix A, which outlines guidelines for tree replacements. Concerns were raised about the clarity of the document and whether it sufficiently detailed the types of trees suitable for replacement after removals. The ordinance specifies certain requirements for replacement trees, such as diameter at breast height, yet confusion lingered about whether shrubs or smaller ornamental trees qualify as valid replacements. A consensus emerged that while homeowners should have some freedom in selecting their trees, it is the commission’s duty to educate them on healthier, community-beneficial options.

A proposal was made to revise the appendix’s wording to emphasize that a native shade tree should replace a removed shade tree. The discussion further addressed monitoring replacement trees’ health to ensure they are properly maintained post-planting. The commission agreed on the necessity of a streamlined list of acceptable shade trees and evergreens while removing shrubs from the recommended replacement options. This clearer delineation aims to prevent misunderstandings among residents and developers. Additionally, the idea of posting a straightforward list of recommended trees on the borough’s website was proposed to improve communication with the community.

Addressing educational outreach, the commission explored the role of trees in air quality and carbon capture. An engaging discussion introduced the concept of a carbon capture calculator, which uses online tools to estimate the carbon absorption of trees based on their type and age. It was suggested that this information could be integrated into the tree removal application process, potentially discouraging unnecessary tree removals by highlighting the environmental benefits of mature trees. The commission considered adding this educational component to the application.

The conversation expanded to include an initiative for raising public awareness about the ecological value of trees. A member proposed creating signage to promote tree preservation, featuring messages that encourage thoughtful consideration before tree removal. These signs could incorporate QR codes linking to educational resources about trees’ benefits. While enthusiasm for linking this project to Earth Week or Arbor Day was expressed, some members cautioned against confining educational efforts to specific dates, advocating for a year-round approach instead. Cost estimates for the signs were discussed, and concerns about obtaining council approval for placing them on public property were raised, prompting a focus on private properties initially.

Furthering the educational agenda, the commission proposed a resident education program, which could involve a “tree pledge” encouraging homeowners to commit to the care of specific trees, fostering a sense of responsibility and ownership. Additionally, the commission considered inviting a local environmental scientist to present data on air quality and tree conservation at a future meeting. This presentation could occur outside the standard meeting format to enhance public engagement, although logistical challenges such as scheduling were acknowledged. Recording the presentation was suggested to create a lasting educational resource for residents.

The meeting also touched on various ongoing projects and initiatives. Updates were provided on the NJ UCF tree inventory grant, highlighting the completion of training sessions for the Department of Public Works staff and the final paperwork submission. The commission addressed the need to update the community forestry management plan and approved a proposal from Bill Brash to undertake this update, funded by a Green Communities Grant. The discussion also included upcoming outreach activities, such as a visit to the Green Team in a neighboring town and plans for a poster contest for Arbor Day.