33:54The most prominent topic of the meeting was the borough’s tree ordinance, which many members considered outdated and in need of revision. Concerns were raised about the loss of trees due to both environmental factors and human actions, with references made to the significant impact of Hurricane Sandy, which decimated approximately 15% of the area’s trees. The discussions emphasized the importance of reassessing the ordinance to prevent unnecessary tree removal and ensure that residents think twice before cutting trees.

One council member pointed out that the ordinance had previously stalled and was not adopted, urging the council to collaborate with the Shade Tree Commission to drive progress. The effectiveness of current tree management strategies was questioned, particularly in light of challenges such as the ash borer and lanternfly infestations. A point was made that replacing mature trees with smaller plantings is not a sufficient solution to restore the tree canopy.

37:07Disagreements emerged over the locations of tree planting initiatives, with some members dissatisfied with the decision-making process. Concerns were expressed that trees were planted in already dense areas, neglecting gaps in other sections of the borough. Clarifications were sought regarding the ordinance’s applicability to commercial properties, and it was noted that while the ordinance currently covers public rights-of-way, parks, and private residential properties, future revisions should consider commercial areas as well.

43:14The potential implementation of fees for tree removal was another contentious issue. While one member was wary of deterring residents from maintaining their yards with permit charges, another argued that the fee, now reduced from $100 to $50, was intended to create a record of tree removals rather than generate revenue. The focus was on maintaining accountability and awareness of changes to the borough’s tree canopy.

16:09Another topic was the proposal to begin the New Jersey Shade Tree Federation accreditation process by applying for the New Jersey Urban and Community Forest Program Green Communities Grant. This proposal aimed to secure protection under community forestry acts and make the borough eligible for additional grants. However, there were questions about the details of the grant application process and its specific benefits. Concerns were voiced about the level of effort required and the potential costs involved, emphasizing the need for clarity before proceeding with the accreditation and associated grants.

21:12In addition to these discussions, the council debated a motion to implement mandatory continuing education for all members, aimed at improving their knowledge and community outreach efforts. The motion was linked to recent concerns raised by a resident about water accumulation issues potentially caused by tree removal. While the proposal was seen as a way to enhance the community’s understanding of the environmental benefits of trees, some members were hesitant about mandating education, fearing it might exceed the commission’s objectives and burden volunteers.

31:11The education proposal was ultimately suggested to be tabled until January, allowing members to explore various educational opportunities throughout the year rather than being restricted to a single option. This approach aimed to encourage participation while providing flexibility.

01:41Lastly, budget implications were a recurring theme, particularly concerning the community forest management plan. Concerns were raised about hiring a consulting arborist without fully assessing the budget. It was suggested to postpone the motion until later in the year to gather more information and make a more informed decision. Despite the urgency felt by some members, the consensus was to prioritize a examination of the documentation before proceeding.