Planning commission delays tree‑protection ordinance, schedules joint study session with state forester

The Milton Planning Commission on Thursday deferred final action on a proposed community forest preservation (tree) ordinance and scheduled a joint study session with the Department of Natural Resources for July 13 to provide council and commissioners with technical context.

Staff said the City Council referred the draft code back to the commission after a May 18 council meeting raised multiple questions. The draft would require permits for certain tree removals, set replacement‑credit requirements (examples discussed included an eight‑credit rule that could translate into multiple replacement trees), and impose penalties for unpermitted removals. Staff and commissioners discussed moving penalties out of the code and onto a fee schedule to allow more flexibility.

Commissioners debated several elements: whether to delay the ordinance until completion of an urban‑forest study, how replacement credits should be calculated (count trunks, canopy area or trunk‑size density), whether neighborhood residential parcels should face the same replanting requirements as development sites, and how to ensure residents are aware of new rules. Several commissioners expressed support for keeping a permitting requirement to protect property owners from unlicensed contractors, even if fees are reduced or temporarily waived to address council concerns.

One commissioner referenced regional analysis showing Milton’s canopy at about 21–22 percent, noting many jurisdictions set canopy‑coverage goals in the mid‑30s to 40s; speakers argued that protecting mature trees yields large ecological and stormwater benefits that are costly to replace. Commissioners suggested outreach strategies such as door hangers, utility‑bill inserts and targeted notices to tree‑service contractors.

The commission agreed to gather additional materials ahead of the July 13 study session (staff will invite a DNR representative and prepare informational packets) and to revisit the ordinance at subsequent meetings; commissioners asked staff to consider removing permit fees from the draft code and placing fees/penalties on the fee schedule instead. No final ordinance vote was taken.