CAPE MAY POINT — Borough Commission introduced an amendment to the tree removal and replacement ordinance, determining how to balance state requirements with community needs.
The ordinance could require the replacement of healthy trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more, or payment into the community tree trust fund. A second reading and public hearing are scheduled for Feb. 24.
During the meeting Jan. 27, Commissioner Suzanne Yunghans said the ordinance is required by the state and is intended to preserve trees to absorb stormwater.
“The good news is that we value our trees and vegetation here in Cape May Point and we understand the importance of trees in maintaining our dunes and protecting our town,” Yunghans said, adding that the changes in the amendment were derived from 15 months of research.
The current tree canopy in Cape May Point is 42.1 percent, which Yunghans said was measured by geospatial mapping software supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the Arbor Day Foundation and Planet Geo.
“The Forest Service benchmarks tree canopy for city neighborhoods at 30 percent, [and] we exceed that in our coastal residentials,” Yunghans said. “That said, we will always have tree loss from age, disease and storm damage.”
In 2024, the state required every municipality to enact a tree removal and replacement ordinance, and the borough complied to meet the state stormwater permit requirements.
The borough enacted its rules that September, following the state’s model with three exceptions.
The first exception required the replacement of hazard trees on private property. Yunghans said hazard trees are defined as having an infectious disease or insect infestation, being dead or dying, or obstructing the view of traffic signs or the passage of pedestrians or vehicles, and for which pruning attempts have not been effective.
The second exception allows an exemption from replacement if the property has the requisite number of native trees per lot.
The third involves replacing trees, requiring two trees to be planted for each tree removed, with the number increasing as the trees’ DBH increases.
“Removal of a hazard tree in the ordinance needs a permit, but does not require a replacement,” Yunghans said. “We hope homeowners will replace it, but it is not required.”
Removal of a healthy tree larger than 6 inches DBH requires a permit and must be replaced by a tree of equal or greater DBH, or replaced by several smaller trees based on the DBH of the tree that was removed. Replacement trees must be accepted from the approved tree list.
Yunghans said that alternatively, homeowners could pay into the borough community tree trust fund.
“The approved tree list identifies tree species native to and thriving in our microclimate,” Yunghans said. “This list was recently updated to include the eastern red bud and the southern magnolia.”
She added that the list is now managed by resolution, so it can be updated periodically.
The borough’s zoning ordinance still requires three trees on a typical 50-by-100 lot, two of which must be medium or large species (from the approved list). Yunghans said more trees are required for larger lots.
“We know trees take a long time to grow, so to keep Cape May Point green for generations to come, paying attention to our trees is our collective responsibility,” Yunghans said. “The tree committee, which is responsible for trees on our public lands, is meeting regularly and making recommendations for trees to be planted this spring.”
Concerns
Deputy Mayor Elise Geiger cast the lone no vote on the amendment. She expressed her concern about the reduction in tree replacement requirements and the potential impact on the canopy.
“I understand the direction that you’ve gone, that we’re taking away tree replacement for the majority of our tree loss,” Geiger said. “Which is the hazard trees, because just about everything is a hazard tree that seems to be coming down.”
Geiger said the traditional tree replacement standard was 2:1 but the amendment reduces it to 1:1.
“So, to me, big picture, this is not really supporting a vision of community with trees that supports wildlife,” she said. “In addition, we may have to go back, if we go forward with this ordinance as it’s written, because and I’ll have to talk to (solicitor John Amenhauser) about it, whether we can have two standards.”
Geiger added that when she proposed matching the landscape plan to the tree ordinance, it was under the assumption that they would keep the 2:1 replacement. She added that she is not sure that the borough can have two different standards for the landscaping plan and voluntary removal.
“One of the things that is unique about our current situation is that we have a native tree exemption, which is the three native trees that are tied into our landscaping and zoning regulations,” she said. “As we try to move everybody potentially to having at least three trees on their property.”
Additionally, Geiger said she believes the problem lies in implementation, not in the original design of the ordinance to maintain the tree canopy.
Mayor Anita VanHeeswyk said that when the previous commission voted on the tree ordinance currently in place, they were up against the Department of Environmental Protection’s timeline.
“We had to do it or we would’ve been fined,” VanHeeswyk said. “I said when I voted that I was hoping this would be reworked, because I saw problems with that one. I’m very happy with the way this looks, I think this is practical as it is now.”
VanHeeswyk added that the 1:1 tree replacement would still give the borough 42 percent tree canopy, rather than the 30 percent standard.
“I think because we have so many trees, if a tree is dead and hazardous, I don’t see that as a decision a homeowner is making to remove a tree,” she said. “As oftentimes insurance companies will say it was an act of god, and I sort of see it that way.”
Geiger said that over time, most of the trees will be either Japanese black pine or poplar, and those are the ones that will die.
“I do think event though it doesn’t match 100 percent the model ordinance, which is designed for suburban and urban [areas] much more so than our area, we’re going to have a loss in tree canopy,” Geiger said. “We have a very, very broad definition of hazard tree.”
Geiger added that she does not believe the amendment is moving the borough in the correct direction.
Yunghans thanked VanHeeswyk and Geiger for their thoughtful comments.
“One thing that was challenging over the last year is that most of the trees that were removed were dead or dying, or obstructive trees,” Yunghans said. “People didn’t have to replace them anyway because they met the exemption of three trees on the property.”
Yunghans agreed that the implementation creates barriers to removing hazard trees in a timely manner.
“I do think we tried to address that in this revision, and I also appreciate that we’ve expanded the list of native trees, because it was somewhat limited,” she said.
By RACHEL SHUBIN/Special to the Star and Wave
