Carbondale Tree Board begins line-by-line review of proposed municipal tree code; key debates focus on permits, enforcement and valuation

At its June 19 meeting the Carbondale Tree Board conducted a detailed line-by-line review of a redline draft municipal code and associated tree standards intended to govern trees on public property and adjacent rights of way.

The draft assigns review duties to the town arborist and/or the public works director and directs the tree board to make recommendations to the board of trustees. Board members raised procedural questions about how treeboard input should be routed relative to Planning and Zoning (PNZ). Dan Bulock asked how the board can ensure PNZ receives treeboard comments before PNZ forwards recommendations to the trustees; members agreed to meet with PNZ staff to coordinate timing and avoid instances where trustees receive recommendations that did not incorporate treeboard input.

A central line-by-line theme was the difference between a homeowner 'tree removal request' and a formal 'permit.' Carl (staff) confirmed the town currently processes written requests from property owners for public-rights-of-way removals rather than full permitting submittals; board members recommended standardizing documentation (written/email) and considering whether some removals should require a permit and administrative review to ensure proper oversight.

Replacement and mitigation language in the draft requires removed public trees be replaced with at least 2.5-inch caliper stock (or larger at the discretion of the town arborist) and allows a cash-in-lieu payment when replacement in place is not feasible. Members favored retaining the 2.5-inch baseline to align with the UDC but stressed the need to preserve arborist discretion. The board also discussed mitigation approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions (for example, planting two trees for the removal of a larger specimen) while noting Carbondale’s limited planting space.

The draft also defines a Critical Root Zone (CRZ) using two methods — a cylinder from the drip line to 10 feet below grade and a trunk-diameter-based radius — and makes final CRZ determinations the responsibility of the town arborist prior to construction, demolition, or excavation. Members supported requiring arborist ground-truthing of CRZs rather than relying solely on survey data.

Enforcement language was debated: the draft gives the town arborist and/or public works director authority to order work stopped when violations occur. Board members discussed which official would issue stop-work orders in practice — the arborist, the public works director or the building department — and agreed staff should coordinate with the building department and the town lawyer to clarify enforcement flow.

On private- and public-tree conflicts, the draft allows the town to remove trees that pose an imminent danger without prior notice and to treat them as nuisances under section 7110; members sought clarity about who bears the cost in emergent situations and flagged the budgetary and insurance implications for the town.

Members also asked staff to research how to appraise tree value for restitution and lien purposes; Carl said the town inventory will be refreshed this summer and recommended the board consider pointing to an accepted valuation method (several appraisal methods were noted as options). That valuation would be used in restitution calculations when tree death, removal or injury is the result of a violation.

Next steps: staff will incorporate board comments, consult the building department and town lawyer on enforcement and permit language, and return a revised draft for further review. The board expects coordination with PNZ and the board of trustees before any ordinance is finalized.