The New Castle City’s Tree Commission Meeting took place on August 1, 2005 at
5:35 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.
Members Present: Chip Patterson, Chairman
Erv Thatcher
Susan Keyser
Chandler Gebhart
Lillian Shue
Fran Peden
Matt White
Member Absent: Mark Miller
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chairman Patterson who announced that this will not be a public meeting; rather, it will be a workshop to allow the Tree Commission an opportunity to discuss the new tree ordinance, make comments and formulate a response. We need to modify, reject, agree with, or offer an alternative to this ordinance. Council President Blest asked if we would be able to provide a response before their 9/9/05 meeting. My answer would be ‘no’. Whatever we do tonight needs to be put into writing and sent to City Council for their consideration. Whenever the City decides to deal with this ordinance or any other ordinance they would have to go through a public hearing as part of the process of adopting the ordinance. Those public hearings are the opportunity for others to comment. The Chair further stated that those individuals in the audience tonight would be provided an opportunity to speak, and then the workshop would be closed to further comment. Mr. White agreed with opening the floor for comments that the Tree Commission would consider in their discussions.
Ned (audience) – He believes this is a fairly good ordinance. Under Chapter XX-3 Definitions, page 2, right-of-way is not addressed. There are two kinds of right-of-way; public domain and right-of-way granted to the City by the homeowners on the sidewalks. The City does not own the sidewalks; the property owners do. We are responsible for the upkeep of those sidewalks and trees and it is clearly stated in this ordinance. The City is not liable. Also, can a citizen in the town who grants right-of-way to the City refuse to have a tree planted on that right of way? This is not mentioned in this ordinance. He has noticed in the past that when trees are cut down in town they leave the stumps. If you remove a tree does that include the stump and roots? Is that the responsibility of the City, the Tree Commission or the homeowner? He also does not understand why the Board of Adjustment is involved. They do not know anything about trees.
The Chair said there are two issues with this. We grind stumps but we don’t remove the root system. Unless the homeowner comes back by replacing the sidewalk, then there is likely to be residual remnants of the tree there.
Council President Blest – Not sure whether this is in the old ordinance or the new ordinance, but it talks about going onto private property and inspecting trees – it seems the Tree Commission can go onto private property with the approval of the property owner.
The Chair said the existing ordinance we are operating under allows the Tree Commission to go onto private property to deal with trees that are public safety issues. The Tree Commission’s ordinance broadened powers of the Tree Commission to deal with trees that
New Castle City Tree Commission Meeting/Workshop
August 1, 2005
Page 2
were diseased trees, such as Dutch Elm disease where the improper removal of those trees could result in the disease spreading to other trees. We wanted to be able to deal with infestations of that nature. This draft ordinance is broader. It gets involved in anything considered to be a potential threat to public safety or an individual or private property. If a limb is overhanging or has the potential to fall, the Tree Commission, with proper notice, can have the right to go in and have it removed at the owner’s expense. Shrubs are also addressed which has not been in other ordinances. It may take a legal opinion to determine just how far this goes.
Council President Blest – Will the Tree Commission be willing to go to the City Solicitor?
The Chair informed we would not seek out separately an opinion. We would bring it to your attention as an area needing to be defined.
Council President Blest – It would benefit Council to let us know what was in the old ordinance versus the new ordinance and whether you agree or disagree. It would be easier for us to comprehend where we are and where we need to be. (The old ordinance is defined as the existing ordinance.)
The Chair – We are dealing with two ordinances. One is the creation of the Tree Commission and the second deals with the ordinance that relates to trees and goes into the definitions, etc. He would like to segregate the items and deal with the creation of the Tree Commission. The City has a book of codes. Chapter 74 deals with the Tree Commission.
§74-1. Creation of Commission and Appointments; Terms of Office; Chairperson --
§74-1A. Creation of Commission and Appointments -- Mr. Gebhart questioned the nine members appointed by City Council. He was appointed by the Trustees, but he was never officially appointed by the City Council. Is there one step that needs to be appointed by the Trustees then move on to City Council. The Chair said that 74-1B states that each nominating group shall make a nomination and submit to City Council for approval to the Tree Commission. Your nomination should have gone to City Council. (Brief discussion about status of current Tree Commission members took place.) Mr. Gebhart asked if we should take some of the control away from the City Council and allow the nominating groups to appoint an appointee without going through City Council. Chairman Patterson informed there are legal issues since it is a City agency and whether other bodies can appoint people without consent of City Council. We can go back to City Council and inform them that all existing members of the Tree Commission are interested in continuing. 74-1B spells out the process of nominations which works better. It allows a mechanism to replace Commission members when nominating groups go defunct. It also does what currently exists with people serving three-year terms. Since this is reconstituting the Tree Commission it starts out by staggering them into three, two and one-year terms so the majority of the body isn’t going off at one time. (Discussion about who would serve for the various terms. City Council shall make the determination.)
§74-1D Chairperson -- There were no comments.
New Castle City Tree Commission Meeting/Workshop
August 1, 2005
Page 3
§74-2A Powers and Duties -- Ms. Keyser feels the Tree Commission’s duty is to protect trees and have authority over trees. This should be clear from the beginning. There is waffling throughout the document as to who has authority, the Tree Commission or the City Forester. Our ordinance said the Tree Commission shall establish a process to protect street trees on City property and public rights-of-way.
Mr. Gebhart – Do we want to go back to the ordinance the Tree Commission did and incorporate what we have learned and resubmit this rather than try to reword what
Ms. Seneschal did? What the Tree Commission did was done with a lot of time, energy, free effort and knowledge. Why not revamp our own and resubmit to Council?
Mr. White – The passage might be smoother if we try to work with Ms. Seneschal’s ordinance. Ours is a strong ordinance. It had its shot and the door might be smaller now to reintroduce something than to show flexibility on our part to work with Council and what they spent money on a consultant to do.
Chairman Patterson -- He feels he can work with this ordinance with a few changes. (Everyone agreed.)
(Brief discussion about wording in the new version and the Tree Commission’s version concerning Powers and Duties took place. The conclusion was to rewrite 74-2 Powers and Duties.)
§74-2. Powers and Duties – The Chair asked if members want to go back to a drafting committee that comes back with proposed wording of 74-2 to the Tree Commission with wording that we think is more appropriate to the mission of the Tree Commission rather than try to work through it tonight? (Everyone agreed.)
§74-3. Organization; quorum quota; meetings -- The Chair informed the only thing that changed from the original ordinance is instead of two meetings (one in the spring and one in the fall), six public meetings are required per year.
§74-4. Grants and Contributions – The Chair suggested keeping monies in a separate account. All Tree Commission monies would be controlled by the City and the City Treasurer signs the checks, but the money does not go into a general fund with no accountability where the money went and what it was used for. The account is already established and should be maintained. (This suggestion will be addressed by the drafting committee.)
§74-5. Authority to Enter into Contracts and Arrangements – Ms. Keyser expressed concern and confusion with the ‘Trustees’ being part of the wording. Mr. White feels it is poorly written. She has divided the responsibilities and duties of the Tree Commission and we suggest that our list override this one. He added that 74-3, 74-4, 74-5, 74-6, 74-7 all fell under our rendition of 74-5. (Discussion about the intention of the wording used in the new version took place.) The Chair suggested redrafting this section.
New Castle City Tree Commission Meeting/Workshop
August 1, 2005
Page 4
§74-6. Return of funds – no comments.
§74-7. Restrictions on funds – no comments.
§74-8. Establishment of the Position of City Forester – The Chair informed that when we drafted the original ordinance we asked the Trustees for an additional $5,000 to fund a forester. They gave us the money and when the ordinance was rejected by Council, the Trustees took the money back. Will the Trustees fund that position again? Mr. Gebhart questioned whether $5,000 was enough. The Chair was unsure; they hoped to find a part-time person. It depends on the scope of the duties of the position. Mr. Gebhart will discuss with the Trustees; they want to support this body. The Chair said the difference between the ordinances was that we were looking for an independent person to enforce the ordinance and carry out the day-to-day activities of the Tree Commission where Jim’s (Weldin) ordinance wanted to put it within a City position run by Public Works. Mr. Gebhart will try to get more than $5,000. Ms. Keyser feels the City Forester should report to the Tree Commission. The Chair expressed concern with whether the last paragraph allows the forester the authority to issue stop work orders. We felt that was important for the forester to have. Mr. White advised that stoppage of work orders is addressed in §XX-19. Administration (c)(2). The Chair said that since the Tree Commission is nominating the City Forester and attending Tree Commission meetings we can ask City Council to dismiss that person and nominate someone else for the position. (Discussion about how the process works currently in the absence of a City Forester and what would be expected of that person when hired took place.)
The Chair felt that Ned (audience) brought up an issue involving public right-of-ways that hasn’t been addressed. The City has the right to take authority over what is in the public right-of-way, but he feels we need a legal opinion to satisfy property owners. Council needs to get a legal opinion about whether the City can assume jurisdiction over trees and public right-of-way whether those trees are on private property or public property. Mr. White added that this issue needs clarification. (Lengthy discussion took place about right-of-ways.) The Chair will send a letter to Council President Blest saying we would like certain questions answered by the city attorney so we can go forward.
(Discussion about the wording of definitions in §XX-3 and penalties for damage to trees in the form of fines for the assessed value of the tree or monetary fine took place.)
Rather than continuing with this process, the Chair suggested doing a second draft then come back to the Tree Commission with the changes we have made. Ms. Keyser volunteered to work with the Chair on the draft. The Chair asked that if any member had a concern about the ordinance they should direct those concerns in writing or email to the draft committee.
Mr. Gebhart went on record in support of everyone here and whatever the draft committee comes up with. Mr. White will forward his concerns to be considered and/or incorporated into the draft.
New Castle City Tree Commission Meeting/Workshop
August 1, 2005
Page 5
Next Meeting
The Chair would like to postpone the next Tree Commission Meeting to 9/19/05. The purpose is that we need a clear explanation from the City on one prominent point (right-of-ways).
Other Business
Ms. Shue received a couple of calls from Bob and Millie Seigman (?) at 13 Third Street regarding their young cherry tree. Its branches are hitting people in the face when people walk by. Also, Sue and Bob Hoskit (?) at 17 The Strand reported a tree hit by lightning. They said the tree is around the property. The Chair said the land behind their house is not City property; the alley on the side of the house is public right-of-way. The land behind the house is owned by Mrs. Cleveland.
Mr. Gebhart thanked the Tree Commission for removing the sycamore on his property. He asked if something will be planted in its place. The Chair informed we are still working on the fall planting. Mr. Gebhart will place some bricks in the hole for the immediate future to keep people from falling.
Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
