CAPE MAY POINT — Borough Commission decided to put a moratorium on removal permits for trees damaged by Winter Storm Hernando, through April 24.
During a meeting Feb. 24, Deputy Mayor Elise Geiger said damage from the blizzard included maimed trees and ones that came down completely.
“It’s more tree damage than I’ve seen after most storms,” Geiger said.
She recommended a 60-day moratorium to allow residents to remove the debris and trees that cannot be saved, noting that it would be faster if the permitting process were waived.
Commissioner Suzanne Yunghans suggested specifying in the moratorium that it would apply only to trees damaged by the storm. The commissioners agreed.
“I don’t think people are going to abuse it to save $75,” Geiger said. “I hope people don’t take advantage to get around the fee.”
Additionally, the borough suspended verification of hazard trees during this time to expedite recovery from the storm.
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.
Residents who want to remove a non-hazardous tree must still apply for a permit.
The current ordinance requires the replacement of trees, with homeowners needing to plant a replacement native tree within the next 12 months.
“The quid pro quo is that people advise us,” Geiger said. “We’re trusting people to do the right thing by reporting and saying what I’m going to do in the future. We’re doing goodwill and hoping for goodwill in return.”
To help the borough understand the impact on its tree canopy, which is vital for stormwater management, residents are asked to advise the borough on the number and types of trees being removed. Residents can call (609) 884-8468, ext. 10, or email Deputy Clerk Kelly Redington at [email protected].
Public Works will continue to pick up branches but cannot take tree stumps, logs or anything that will not fit into a wood chipper.
During the Jan. 27 meeting, the commission introduced an amendment to the tree removal and replacement ordinance to determine how to balance state requirements with community needs.
The ordinance would require either replacing healthy trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more or paying into the community tree trust fund.
The commission decided to table the ordinance at the Feb. 24 meeting due to comments made during the public hearing.
“We should look at it again and address some of the issues that came up,” Yunghans said. “We put something in place 15 months ago, we’ve looked at the data, and we’re trying to see if there is a way to make it better and maybe we tweak it again in the future.”
Geiger added that the benefit of the past 15 months is that the borough was able to get data that it never had.
Public feedback
Jean Biesecker questioned whether the period is from the application for hazard tree removal, seeking an exemption, and from the borough’s decision. She also questioned the permit timeline and the new tree’s survival period after planting.
“I also wasn’t sure if the applicant plants the tree and they’re within the two-year window of time that they sell the property, if the new property owner is going to be on notice that the sapling is in a two-year window,” she said. “And are they going to be under obligation to replace it.”
Solicitor John Amenhauser said, from a technical standpoint, that if a property was sold to a third party during the two-year period after planting, the seller would be required to put the buyer on notice.
“They would be required to keep an eye on that tree for the remainder of the two-year period and act, if necessary, if the tree dies,” Amenhauser said.
Resident Brigett Bates said she would recommend tabling the ordinance for further discussion.
“I think the clarity that is necessary for public consumption isn’t there,” Bates said. “It seems to me there is more discussion to be had on replacement percentage, one for one, two for one.”
Bates added that guaranteeing the bare minimum of canopy maintenance was probably not being met by a one-to-one requirement.
“You might want to consider adding a completely new requirement if you’re clearing a certain percentage and replacement is calculated completely differently,” Bates said. “It might clarify for people who are not clear-cutting lots, what they can and can’t do with their trees and guarantee a maintenance or growth of our canopy.”
Yunghans said that the state requires every town to have this ordinance.
“In the New Jersey model ordinance, it does not require permit fees or replacement of a hazard tree,” she said. “It was to prevent people from taking down healthy trees and not replacing them. We might choose to do something different here, but that was what was in the model ordinance.”
Geiger agreed and said the borough is allowed to do something different from the model ordinance.
“The loss of any tree has a huge impact on the amount of stormwater that gets sucked up,” Geiger said. “That’s why the state is essentially pushing to get this done.”
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.
Geiger said it is a question of whether they ask people to replace the trees.
“But understanding as Anita said at the beginning, we have so little property,” Geiger said. “The exemption process is taking a long time, so people get aggravated because they want to chop down their hazard trees.”
Yunghans said another challenge is that, because the exemption has been in place, three-quarters of the trees didn’t get replaced because people met the exemption requirements.
“It’s so challenging to find a fair, reasonable pathway in the middle of all this,” Yunghans said, thanking the residents for the feedback.
Geiger added it is complex to balance the long-term and short-term, as well as hazard versus non-hazard trees.
By RACHEL SHUBIN/Special to the Star and Wave
