New Tree Removal Application process

So, NJ has mandated that all municipalities create an ordinance that governs removal of trees. This is a good idea, since too many people clear cut their property in order to have nice lawns, and destruction of trees is never a good thing.

In the ordinance, there is the following paragraph:

Any person planning to remove or replace a street tree, as defined as Tree removal
with DBH greater than 2.5” or any non-street tree with DBH of 6” or greater on their
property shall submit a Tree Removal Application to the Zoning Officer. No tree,
regardless of size, shall be removed or replaced until the municipal officials have
reviewed and approved the removal. A tree survey shall be submitted as part of the
application to determine number, sizes, and exemptions of trees.

It seems like if a tree is larger than a DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of 6", we need to submit a removal application. It also seems like we need to get a review and approval before removing a tree regardless of size.

AITA because I think this is really stupid wording? Like, “if bigger than X, you need a removal application. Also, if not bigger than X, you need a removal application.”

(the ordinance also refers to “mature” and “young” trees, without definition)

What is the penalty for not complying?

tyranny

1 Like

It has different criteria for street trees vs non-street. Those are the two diameters.

That I understand. The first sentence refers to the minimum size of street and non-street trees for which a removal application must be submitted. The second sentence refers to trees of any size, apparently for which a removal review and approval must also be obtained.

Irrelevant.

I’m kinda curious about that too.

Also does “AITA” mean “am I the asshole” or “Am I to assume?”

Sounds like you need a tree survey to cut any tree down. Then your application would be for either a street tree over 2.5" or 6" if a non street tree.

Sounds like a pain in the ass to me. I get wanting to protect trees, but at a certain point it is just a regulatory quagmire.

I just had a tree removed from my front yard, it was about DBH of 40" and close to 60" at the base. It cost me a damn fortune, but it was cracking my driveway and the road. I should send the city a bill for preventing future road repairs.

And yes that wording is confusing.

It reads that you can’t remove any trees until the application is reviewed, if you need to file the application. So if you want to remove 15 trees, 10 of which are smaller and 5 of which are larger than you can’t remove any until the permit is approved. If you don’t plan on removing any bigger ones then no need to file anything and get cutting.

That is how I read it.

If that is correct then:

Monday: I want to remove 10 smaller trees so I don’t need to do anything.

Tuesday: oh I want to remove those 5 bigger ones also. So now I’ll submit the application.

That’s the loophole. This is why I hate that kind of language. So much time and money was spent on the legalese for this kind of issue but there’s still loopholes.

What happens when a snow or wind storm (which are very popular in the NE) breaks those trees? Do you need to file paperwork and fees for that? Are you allowed to cut them down and clear them before someone comes out to assess?

Of all the things municipalities need to waste their time on and tax payer money to be spent on.

Our penalties are in the thousands of dollars

One of my wife’s tenants cut down 40 huge redwood trees on the perimeter of the property without permission from the city or her.

The city fined them $20K.

My wife’s company sued them and they settled for $500K.

But it also says that …a survey is needed to determine tree sizes…; Survey is part of the application.

So it could be interpreted that you need an application, and survey, anyway before cutting.

Yes, confusing.

I assume the application, survey, etc. is not free.

If I hire “Jose Tree Co” to cut down a tree, I could also interpret that as his tree company would be responsible for getting the necessary oks (rather than me dealing w/city gov’t). Which he would then pass the costs on to me.

That’s how it works here. You need to get an arborists report that locates and identifies all trees on the property, their species, health, etc. You can then remove trees below a certain size limit.

The funny thing is, when performing a renovation, you need to erect temporary fencing around the root zone of all protected trees. The root zone is often quite big, larger than the trees canopy. So, you end up spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to… use a bunch of extra lumber to protect a few trees.

Seems a bit silly.

Also annoying is because of our manufactured housing crisis, developers are generally given much more leeway for removing trees off properties, but heaven forbid the city catches an individual home owner cutting a tree down. The fine is in the five figures.

I’m not aware of any such requirements here (N IL). We’ve had a number of dead or diseased trees removed (box elder mostly) and we just hired our guys to take care of it. Damn impressive rope work too.

Mr. T disagrees

Lake Forest is a whole 'nother world.