Riverside residents will have to obtain a permit from the village to have trees removed from their property starting in June.
Village trustees unanimously approved an ordinance on Thursday, May 7, requiring a permit before a tree can be removed in order to prevent residents from mistakenly removing trees that grow on Riverside’s property. The new law, effective June 1, will not affect tree trimming, Building Inspector Robert Koncius told trustees.
The ordinance also establishes a $1,500 deposit that tree contractors must pay as part of the permitting process to cover any potential damage to the parkway in the course of removing a tree, Koncius said. According to a memo from the meeting, the village will return the payment after confirming the parkway was not damaged in the course of the work or put it toward fixing any damage.
Initially, Koncius said he recommended Riverside charge residents $25 for each tree removal permit to cover the staff costs of approving them.
“The point is so we can help [inform] the contractor or the resident of, exactly, is that their tree or not,” he said. “We are checking in with our village forester and GIS [geographic information system] application to make sure that it is a tree that is not our tree.”
He said the work of inspecting each tree prior to removal is especially necessary in Riverside due to some quirks of property lines in town.
“In the village of Riverside, our property lines don’t meet up onto the sidewalk as in a typical village. They do sometimes go five feet, 10 feet, 15 feet [past the sidewalk]. Unfortunately, a lot of residents don’t know that, so this is another way of catching that” before they mistakenly remove a tree on village property, Koncius said.
Village President Doug Pollock said it fell to the village board’s discretion as to whether Riverside charges for the permits.
“The main purpose of this program is not to raise money. The purpose is to make sure that tree removal is done correctly,” he said.
Some trustees spoke out against charging residents for the permits, at least at first.
“I think a permit is a great solution to a real problem that we have. Paying for a permit is not a requirement for that solution,” Trustee Jill Mateo said. “I balk at the idea of charging. $25 for people in Riverside is not a lot, but I’m paying a lot of money to a tree contractor to remove a tree, and now you want me to go get a permit and pay for it?”
Mateo suggested waiting six months or a year before reviewing the program and determining if a fee to recoup costs would truly be necessary.
Trustee Cristin Evans agreed, saying the upcoming summer and fall seasons would likely give staff a solid idea of how much work the new permitting process requires.
Village Manager Jessica Frances underscored another side of the issue: ensuring contractors are properly insured and paying their deposits to avoid as many incidents of work going wrong as possible.
“Sometimes that takes more time than the actual review of the permit,” she said.
She said the village’s double-checking contractors would serve to protect residents against issues in the case something does go wrong, like if a felled tree causes damage to a neighboring property.
For those worried about where the line between trees and other plants falls and whether the new ordinance could impact home gardening, Community Development Director Anne Cyran said it will not.
“Without defining a tree, staff would use the common understanding of what a tree is. For residents’ benefit, if you’re doing clearing in your yard using a hatchet or any kind of small equipment to remove vegetation, that would not require a permit. That would be considered doing general landscaping,” Cyran said.
Trustee Aberdeen Marsh-Ozga suggested adding language relating to the kind of equipment used that would trigger the need for a permit for the larger equipment that is necessary for a removal of an adult tree, though all six members of the board ultimately voted to approve the ordinance as-is without the inclusion of fees.
“We need to get something on the books to protect public trees, and I’d like to see us approve this tonight and, at the same time, direct staff to look into that,” Pollock said in response to Marsh-Ozga. For small trees on private property, “You don’t need a permit for that because that can be removed with your chainsaw or handsaw, and there’s no concern about it landing on someone’s house.”
