If the proposed changes to Evanston’s tree policy are implemented, in many cases residents would need to apply for a special permit before removing trees from private property.
Hinman Avenue and Lake Street Credit: Evan Girard
If construction is planned on the property and the tree is not dead or dangerous, the owner may need to obtain approval from a city council committee prior to removal.
City officials on the City Council Planning and Development Committee outlined proposed changes to their tree protection guidelines on July 10.
The recommendations grew out of a nod from the planning committee to the Evanston Environment Board to develop an ordinance to protect trees on private property, Emily Okallau, the city’s public services coordinator, said in a memo and presentation at the meeting.
Wilmette gave an example
Environment committee members sought support from city employees who were looking at neighboring communities with private tree ordinances, Okallau said.
“There are examples of tree protection ordinances throughout the area and throughout the North Shore. And employees contacted these colleagues to discuss how the ordinances work and how trees are protected. And one of the most resounding comments we’ve had — the feedback we’ve had — is that they often impose large fines,” she told plan committee members. “They charge a lot of money, but they don’t necessarily protect the trees.”
The only community with a different type of ordinance, the staff noted, was Wilmette. This village only allows tree felling if an application is accompanied by a building permit, Okallau said in her memo.
“To remove a tree without proper planning permission, property owners must apply to the village council for a change; “There have been no such amendments in the two years since the regulation was passed,” she reported.
The staff used the information they gathered and then, working with the city’s community development department, reviewed “what it would actually look like to protect trees, and that’s where we are tonight,” she told planning committee members.
“Trees on private property are not currently regulated by city ordinances (except for properties larger than 2 acres),” Okallau noted in her memo, “and property owners are free to remove and otherwise affect their trees.”
A study by the Chicago Region Trees Initiative shows that at least 70% (and probably closer to 80%) of Evanston’s tree canopy is on private property, Okallau reported.
She said with that in mind, preserving trees on private property is “vital” to the city’s Climate Action Resilience Plan, as well as other city efforts to restore climate stability.
The changes apply to trees that are widely believed to make “significantly valuable contributions to the ecosystem and community; often (but not exclusively) indigenous; high quality habitat for other plants and animals; suitable for public spaces; are neither invasive nor aggressive propagators,” says the city’s practice.
A visit from the arborist
Okallau told committee members that they recognize there are instances “where trees need to be removed when trees are dead and when trees are dangerous when they are not appropriate for the site.”
“There’s a clear way to do that — it’s an easy way,” she claimed.
“Second, the most common way trees are affected is when the property is being built, where there’s digging, some sort of extension,” she said. “And so, a tree protection permit…would be integrated into the workflow of other types of building permits as appropriate.”
Where no construction work is required and the trees are not dead or dangerous, property owners would have to go through a different process.
“Property owners who want to remove a tree just because they don’t like the way it looks need to apply for a modification,” she said. Currently, “there is no process within the planning permission process to do this.”
For construction work, the person conducting the visit is a certified arborist.
The arborist will conduct a site survey, she said, and update the property owner on how the project will affect the trees on the property and neighboring properties.
“There is an opportunity to mitigate the impact,” she said.
The Department of Community Development has raised concerns
In her presentation, Okallau noted that the city’s community development staff raised concerns about “unintended consequences the ordinance may have on the building permit process,” including:
- Implementation of the tree protection permit would require changes to approximately 30 individual permitting and zoning processes;
- Property owners may be reluctant to plant trees if they feel it will limit their ability to expand their home/property in the future.
- Projects on smaller lots are more likely to affect trees on neighboring lots, impacting property owners in low/middle income neighborhoods differently;
- Additional costs and increased approval times for building permits and construction work may reduce the development of housing types such as freestanding and attached housing units that offer smaller and affordable housing options, particularly in high-cost neighborhoods.
In March 2022, trees were felled on private property running from Emerson Street to Jackson Avenue in the city’s 5th Ward, where an affordable housing project is planned. Credit: Photo by Bob Seidenberg
At the July 10 planning committee meeting, Sara Flax, the city’s director of community development, acknowledged that “there are a few areas that we think need clarification and may require a little more thought and work.”
She expressed hope that the department can do outreach and educate people about the changes, “because whatever you do, people want to move their projects forward quickly.” And when they find out they have a step to go and things like that, let’s try to prevent that… ‘What does the city want of me now?’”
The ministry estimates that around 500 building permits could be affected, “and there could actually be quite a few more,” Flax told the committee.
Council members generally supported the proposal in their initial discussion.
Councilor Bobby Burns, 5th Circuit, asked for more details on the costs the property owner would incur, noting that the current cost of a tree protection permit is $75.
Okallau said if trees on a property were not removed, the fee would remain at $75.
However, if property owners propose to remove trees, that action would trigger a mitigation process that would require property owners to either plant a tree to replace the removed tree or pay a fee.
The members of the planning committee did not react to the proposal, which was about to be introduced. The committee has tabled action on the regulation by its August 28 meeting, where further discussions are expected.
Trees related to climate change and public health
During a public statement earlier in the session, several current and former members of the Evanston Environment Board pushed for adoption of the regulation.
Voting for the changes, Wendy Pollock, co-chair of the Environment Committee, said: “Evanston will join neighboring communities like Wilmette and cities in other parts of the country like Cambridge that have already taken this important step.”
Pollock informed members of the planning committee that the environmental committee has been discussing and considering the ordinance for at least three years.
“During this time, community members who have made public comments at Environment Committee meetings have generally spoken out in favor of preventing the felling of healthy trees on private property. And the board has been working with city officials and city council members to discuss the language provisions and compromises included in the current proposed regulation,” she said.
One of two Redbud trees planted in the southern part of Lovelace Park. Credit: Andrew Fisher
“We have also extensively discussed and considered the importance of equity in both the formulation and implementation of this regulation,” she said. “It is in line with the objectives of the Environment Committee. The Evanston Urban Forest offers benefits to everyone in the community. We all bear responsibility for this resource.”
Cherie LeBlanc Fisher, who has just completed two terms on the Environment Committee and served as its co-chair for four years, noted that research has shown trees provide many benefits, particularly in cities.
“The links between trees and climate change and between trees and public health may not be obvious to everyone,” she said, but “there are many proven links.” When we have record heat in the summer, trees, our homes or cars, help to cool sidewalks and public spaces. During heavy rains, trees prevent soil erosion and absorb rainwater. When we have smoke from Canadian wildfires, our trees help clean the air. It’s easy to think of trees on private property as private property, but they are a community resource that benefits everyone.”
She said, “Removing just one mature tree destroys benefits that cannot be replaced by planting smaller trees for decades to come.”
Environmental Justice Evanston co-chair Janet Alexander Davis said the group was concerned about the employee notice, which raised questions about the possible negative effects of the regulation.
Davis, a lifelong resident of the city, said she understands Evanston wants to address a housing crisis and that those efforts could lead to new developments.
“It needs to be addressed through thoughtful planning that is consistent with all of our environmental and climate goals, and not by creating a false conflict with tree conservation goals,” she said. “Evanston trees form a networked urban forest – whether on public land or on private property. This provides valuable environmental benefits such as improved air quality, cooling shade and a habitat for birds and other wildlife. Urban planners should look for solutions that can meet both goals.
“Evanston environmental justice advocates have heard strong support for an improved canopy in the 5th Precinct and other underserved areas of Evanston,” she said. “These neighborhoods suffer from higher temperatures because there are fewer shade trees.”
evanstonroundtable.com
https://evanstonroundtable.com/2023/07/16/residents-may-need-permit-to-remove-trees-under-new-rules/
