While the CAC continues to agonize and dither, Hudson continues to lose trees. Yesterday, a beautiful, old, healthy cedar was cut down in front of 339 Union Street.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
Another Try for the Tree Ordinance
In December 2023, the Conservation Advisory Council submitted a draft tree ordinance to the Common Council Legal Committee. That effort went nowhere. Since then, it seems the member of the CAC tasked with the tree ordinance initiative has been working at "dumbing down" the ordinance to make it more palatable to the Common Council. At last night's CAC meeting, it was decided that Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward), who chairs the Legal Committee, would be invited to the next CAC meeting, which takes place on March 4, to discuss the tree ordinance.
Why on earth? Shame to loose healthy trees.
ReplyDeleteI had come across that piece of legislation last year when it made FB news briefly (Scalera was quite actively lobbying against it).
ReplyDeleteI found a preliminary draft of it that contained some additional data points that were the basis for it. The one that stood out to me at the time was this: Hudson's tree coverage sat at 4.1% (at the time of writing in 2023) whereas the minimum amount considered sustainable is 43.5%. That's a pretty stark discrepancy.
It also lines up with my personal experience that I generally much rather not spend a sunny summer afternoon in Hudson since shade is hard to come by.
That ordinance as written does exactly nothing to address this. It's clearly only a stop-gap to prevent making it worse by obligating home owners to replace a cut-down tree (or pay a sum of money into a tree fund).
It places a new burden on property owners while it leaves unaddressed the lack of trees on streets that are under city ownership. When I'm in Hudson, I generally walk around on city streets and do not cut through people's front or backyards. Trees there, while no doubt nice and beneficial, aren't as useful as they would be along the length of Columbia or State Street.
I can't wait to see what the "dumbing down" of this ordinance will yield. It is on the one hand necessary to prevent yet another kick to the groin of property owners but at the same time it will not improve Hudson's tree coverage.
If the city had any money, trees would be a great place to start spending it on. Kamal seems to like PILOTs better than trees, regrettably.
This is by the way no criticism of Rich Volo and the CAC who drafted the first version of the ordinance: They just made do with the tragic lack of funding that they receive. Rich asked me to bring this up with Kamal and Tom. I did and it was, as you might predict, a fool's errand.
The first iteration of this ordinance was not warmly embraced by the public, so the CAC researched other options.
ReplyDeleteThere are several issues:
1. Enforcement - How will a Tree Ordinance be enforced?
The CAC reached out to both Code Enforcement, and DPW, and enforcing a Tree Ordinance does not necessarily fall under their jurisdiction, nor do they have the resources.
Other communities have established Tree Boards of volunteers (similar to the HPC). If someone wants to cut down a tree, they approach the tree board, and either they replace the tree with another tree(s) of equal caliper, and/or contribute to a Tree Fund. However, if someone cuts down a tree without approaching the Tree Board, then what? Is there a fine? It goes back to our enforcement question.
2. What is legally and politically possible?
It’s very painful to watch old trees come down, however, stopping every tree felled would require an ordinance that tells property owners what they can/cannot do on private property. That ordinance would have to pass the council.
What we have down is SCALED down the scope of the ordinance to include trees that offer public shade/enjoyment.
At this point, yes, we need to re-consult with the Legal Committee and the City’s attorney, review our options, and understand what’s possible.
This is not an easy needle to thread.
Rich
Old growth trees like humans have a life span. Sooner or later trees become a hazard to life. Unfortunately all the large tress are on private property. Hudson, to my knowledge, never had an interest in trees. Hudson can hardly deal with its more pressing problems. This nit picking about removing trees or even pruning is always nonsense fodder for Gossips to carp about. Let property owners do what they like on their property. These before and after photos almost criminalize the owners of the property and put them in danger of some nut environmentalist.
ReplyDeleteAdding more trees to Hudson is a good thing and I commend Rich and the CAC for their efforts.
ReplyDeleteI also have to point out that everyone loves a tree that’s on someone else’s property. Trees do have a lifespan and many of the older trees in Hudson, like silver maples, become too big and brittle for our dense lot size. What may seem like a healthy tree to a passerby may be quite differently described by an arborist. And once a property owner becomes aware of a hazardous tree they can be found negligent for any damages that tree does to themselves or their neighbors, as well as repercussions with their insurance. Nobody takes a large tree down on a whim, it can cost upwards of $10,000.