North Haven Village Board Continues Hearing on Tree Clearing Legislation

The North Haven Village Board continued a public hearing last week on legislation aimed at protecting mature and majestic trees through a revision to the village’s clearing code.

“We wish this to be a reasonable code. We wish to protect mature, old, majestic trees in the village that are considered a strong characteristic of the village and what most people love about it,” Mayor Chris Fiore said prior to the hearing at a board meeting on February 15. “We do not want contractors coming in and clear-cutting. We do not want residents clear-cutting without going to the building inspector.”

Except for species identified as invasive by the State Department of Transportation, no native deciduous tree with a caliper of 21 inches or greater at a height of 4.5 feet above ground level, or American holly or cedar with a caliper above 10 inches at a height of 4.5 feet above ground level, would be allowed to be removed without a tree removal permit issued by the building inspector, under the legislation. Tree work conducted by or for a state-regulated public utility would be exempt under the proposal.

The removal or maintenance of dangerous dead wood and nonnative invasive species does not qualify as “clearing,” the code revision explains. A list of nonnative invasive species is available at Village Hall and on the village’s website.

A permit to remove a mature tree should be granted only if in the opinion of the building inspector or an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, it is dead or dying; or if it poses a danger to property or the public; or if it is within the building envelope of construction plans on file with the Building Department, the code change reads.

The building envelope is defined as the width, depth, and height dimensions within which a proposed structure is to be built.

Any person guilty of violating the proposed code could be fined up to $2,500 for each tree removed. Also, any building permit in effect for the property would be suspended for 90 days, and each tree must be replaced with one from the North Haven Village list of recommended species, with a minimum caliper of 8 inches at 4.5 feet above ground level.

According to Trustee Peter Boody, the board wanted to ease the restriction from the originally planned 16 inches proposed previously and decided there are too many good-sized trees below 21 inches that would be left unprotected. They are also removing the qualifier “deciduous” from that number, so it will be any tree 19 inches caliper or greater, except red cedar and American holly, which don’t get that big. They’ll remain protected at 10 inches caliper and above.

“Anything else, we would love it to stay unless you have a case you can take to the building inspector. Nobody is looking to bust chops here with this code revision. We simply want to save majestic trees from the chainsaw of the contractor,” Fiore said.

Residents who have over cleared their properties would need to revegetate the land. Revegetation is the restoration of the floral component of an ecological community where some or all the natural vegetation has been removed. Typically, this process consists of planting indigenous species of trees, shrubs, or grasses at a sufficient size and density to mimic an adjoining or nearby plant community in appearance or function. Most ecological communities are characterized by woody vegetation but some, grasslands, tidal marshes, may be characterized by herbaceous vegetation.

“I applaud you for trying to address some of the clear-cutting that we’ve all witnessed over the last few years. It’s definitely disturbing to all of us,” village resident Bryan Von Hagn told the board during the meeting.

Von Hagn was concerned that the new code revision may “disenfranchise” residents of their rights. He pointed out that besides the tree dying, being a danger to property, or growing within the building envelope, there is no way to remove a tree legally for adding a pool for example. For specific cases, if the building inspector and an arborist both deem a tree healthy to remain, residents would be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for potential approval.

Another resident worried that wealthy residents may pay an arborist to falsify if a tree is diseased.

“I don’t know that you should have the private opinion take precedence over the building inspector just as a default,” resident Kim Taipale said. “You’re going to have people go out and hire people who can give an opinion.”

“When it comes to the determination of a diseased tree,” Fiore said. “I would accept a certified arborist’s recommendation rather than a building inspector. When it comes to a tree that could be deemed unsafe to your structure, I’d lean to the building inspector then the arborist.”

“If it’s dead, it’s dead,” Fiore said. “An arborist is going to say diseased or not diseased. The building inspector and the arborist can work it out together.”

The public hearing will continue at the next board meeting on March 15.