Montvale Planning Board says tree preservation ordinance needs more work

An ordinance pending council approval on Feb. 11 that could prohibit clear-cutting in Montvale was questioned Tuesday by members of the planning board.

The proposed ordinance, which seeks to regulate the excessive removal of trees in the borough, would require residents to obtain a $35 permit prior to cutting down three, four and five trees in residential zones, R-10, R-15 and R-40, respectively. A $500 fee would be charged for every tree removed thereafter, and violators could face a $2,000 fine for every tree that is "improperly removed." According to the proposed ordinance, exemptions include trees located within a nursery, removal of trees which endanger public safety, and the trimming of trees in a public right-of-way.

The governing body unanimously introduced the ordinance at its Jan. 28 work session meeting and then gave it to the planning board for its review. The ordinance was drafted by a tree ordinance committee, which was assembled by Councilwoman Leah LaMonica. LaMonica said the ordinance would be a "tremendous benefit to the community," as the act of clear-cutting "has happened in Montvale recently."

While the board commended the committee for its work on the ordinance at its Feb. 4 meeting, the board had reservations about it, with some calling it "stringent," "restrictive," and "burdensome."

"I'm not quite sure if what's proposed is meeting the goal as set forth in the objective in the ordinance," said Planning Board Chairman John DePinto, who made a motion for the board to authorize planning board planner Richard Preiss to examine the ordinance with the help of professionals. DePinto also asked Councilwoman Theresa Cudequest, who is the planning board liaison, to relay board members' concerns to the council.

The residential zones included in the ordinance, the need for permits, and violation fines were shared concerns among the board that evening. DePinto said he wasn't in agreement with the selected zones the ordinance covers and questioned why commercial zones weren't included in the ordinance. He made mention of a heavily wooded, five-and-a-half-acre tract located at 64 Chestnut Ridge Road, which contains a few cottages that landowners lease to their tenants. The property is situated in a commercial zone and used for residential purposes, DePinto said, adding that it would be devastating if the owners were to remove an indiscriminate number of trees on that property, since it is not covered in the proposed ordinance.

"Hopefully, the Montvale Mayor and Council will amend the proposed ordinance to address this and other properties outside of the R-10, R-15 and R-40 zones that may be vulnerable to clear-cutting," he said.

Last month, Robert Hanrahan, president of the tree ordinance committee who helped draft the ordinance, said the committee consulted with residents to help determine the number of trees each homeowner could remove in each zone. He said most of the other commercial zones in the borough are covered by other zoning ordinances, although more zones may be added in the future.

Other concerns among the board included the need to obtain a permit to cut down, for instance, a diseased tree in a backyard and having to pay a $2,000 fine to the borough for violating the ordinance if the tree belongs to the property owner and not the borough.

Read more:
Montvale Planning Board says tree preservation ordinance needs more work