The proposed tree ordinance dominated discussions, as board members deliberated on the best strategies to ensure effective tree replacement across the borough. The ordinance, in its draft form, aimed to create a comprehensive record-keeping system for tree removals and installations, overseen by the board engineer. A key aspect of the debate was the fee structure for developers, which one member argued was too low, considering the market rate for tree installation. As it stood, the increase to $1,000 was agreed upon, with the understanding that it should adequately fund the borough’s tree planting initiatives.

Further enhancing the board’s environmental agenda, a “tree fund” was proposed, where developers would contribute financially to offset any net loss of trees. This fund would be used for planting trees in suitable locations around the borough, addressing concerns about the feasibility of planting new trees on individual properties due to issues like underground utilities or property easements. The board emphasized that the goal was not to penalize residents for tree removals but to ensure that the borough’s greenery is preserved and expanded, especially in areas prone to flooding.

The ordinance also proposed a shift in responsibility, suggesting that while residents should be encouraged to replace trees on their property, the borough would take on the task when residents are unable to do so. The involvement of the Environmental Commission was suggested to ensure that appropriate species of trees are planted, tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each location. This included the potential expansion of the commission’s role to include the planting of shade trees alongside street trees.

Debate extended to the logistics of tree replacement, such as whether replacements should match the size of removed trees or if larger trees could be an option in certain areas. This flexibility would be vital in managing financial constraints and ensuring that the borough’s tree canopy remains diverse and resilient.

The ordinance also touched on potential incentives for residents to participate in tree replacement efforts. The Environmental Commission was tasked with creating marketing strategies to raise awareness of the borough’s tree initiatives.

In addition to the tree ordinance, the board discussed ongoing reviews of base zoning and master plan elements. Flooding issues along Park Avenue were a concern, prompting calls for detailed maps and overlays to integrate these findings into the master plan. There was an acknowledgment that current zoning allowances might need reevaluation to align with the community’s evolving needs, particularly in preserving open spaces and managing flood zones.

The board also delved into potential changes to zoning regulations in the eastern and southern sections of the East Central Business District (ECBD). Discussions focused on establishing a uniform three-story height limit for new developments to provide clarity and consistency. Members identified the need to map flood zones and reassess height limitations.

As the meeting progressed, members highlighted the need for clear definitions, particularly regarding terms like “TDR” (transfer development rights), to enhance public understanding. The board recognized that the current zoning allowances might not be suitable for certain areas and called for a reevaluation of approved uses.

In reviewing the master plan elements, the board prepared to address the historic and recreation elements, with updates expected on additional open spaces and facilities for senior programming. These elements would be shared with board members for further review.