The New Castle City Tree Commission Meeting took place on November 1, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.
Members Present: Chip Patterson, Chairperson
Susan Keyser
Erv Thatcher
Fran Peden
Lillian Shue
Mark Miller
Matt White
Chairperson Chip Patterson called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. He asked if there were any questions from the floor for the Commission that are not on tonight’s agenda. There were none.
Report of Commission Members
Susan Keyser reported that at the last meeting she was asked to talk to Mr. Nepi about his tree on Clayton Street. His concern is that it is not as full as it needs to be. She suggested waiting until the Spring and for further discussions as needed.
Fran Peden reported that the tree at the library is still standing. Mr. Thatcher added that he has three other trees that are also going to be taken down this Fall.
Mark Miller said he would like to call attention to work that is being done near Delaware Street. A trench was dug for a gas pipe and there was a good deal of damage done to the roots of the tree. It is a maple-like tree.
Chairman’s Report
Chairperson Patterson reported an approximate balance of $16,000. The Commission will receive two payments from the Trustees in the next two quarters of $5,000 each. That will carry the Commission’s work through March 2005.
Fall Planting
Susan Keyser reported a number of trees have been requested. Chairperson Patterson reminded the group they talked about securing trees themselves and paying to have them planted since the Commission was unhappy with Evergreen. Mr. White volunteered to help with this. Mr. White will try to get in touch with Mr. Huber’s former son-in-law who has done a lot of work in New Castle. Mr. White will also assist Ms. Keyser with identifying the types of trees and where they will be planted then we can secure the person who will do the planting.
Mr. Thatcher announced that Brian Hall, Sate Forester, will be here this week to explain the inventory of trees he performed and to discuss trees considered for removal. Mr. Thatcher said he understands from Jim Weldin one is a city tree while the rest are park trees. It was noted the Commission does not have anything in writing. Ms. Keyser was concerned this procedure is not normal practice and whether we are setting a precedent getting Mr. Hall involved in deciding what trees should be removed. As for the inventory of trees it was noted the Commission needs to know how to read the document and how to evaluate the trees. Chairperson Patterson would like members from the Tree Commission to be available when Mr. Hall visits. Mr. Patterson said the Commission is the legally-constituted body to deal with trees. It was suggested that Russ Carlson and someone from the Property and Maintenance Department also be given invitations to meet with Mr. Hall.
Insurance Underwriter Letters – Two letters have been transmitted by Mr. Weldin from the Professional Underwriters. The first dated 10/21/04 states “approximately 43 trees have been identified for immediate removal.” The writer of the letters issued a second letter dated 10/29/04. This letter changed language to “a number of trees.” This was because the writer misunderstood information Jim Weldin had provided to her.
Page 2
Chairperson Patterson stated we are dealing with two issues. The “Green Infrastructure Ordinance” Mr. Weldin drafted. The second issue deals with the mandate by the insurance carrier concerning the removal of dangerous trees. Mr. Patterson said the Commission has not heard from City Council. Mr. Patterson said Council had not seen a copy of the Insurance Underwriters letter until he gave them a copy and he has not had a response to its content.
Mr. Patterson suggested the Commission write a letter to City Council requesting a response from the City to the insurance underwriter asking them how the correspondence was generated and why. A motion was made that a letter be prepared not permitting the removal of trees until we have a discussion with City Council. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
Green Ordinance
The ordinance creating the Tree Commission was included as a handout in the Commission’s papers. It details what the Commission is charged to do. Mr. Patterson said the current ordinance charge is street trees on city property. Part of the problem is the Green Ordinance wants to deal with all property. It doesn’t deal just with a tree that is a problem to public safety or vehicle safety. Any tree that interferes with sidewalks or is on personal, private property could be declared a nuisance. Mr. Miller added that our ordinance explicitly rejected that action as being much too obtrusive. Mr. Castagno wanted to add language to the Tree Commission’s ordinance stating that if a tree conflicts with a sidewalk it will be removed and replaced, budget allowing, with a suitable species. Chairperson Patterson wrote Mr. Castagno saying this is unacceptable to the Tree Commission. The suitable species he believed would be “lollipop” trees rather than larger trees. Mr. Patterson said he asked Mr. Castagno to withdraw the ordinance the Tree Commission penned and not to proceed any further as it would be an embarrassment to the City to have the Tree Commission oppose its own ordinance. Mr. Patterson said he felt Mr. Castagno doesn’t like the idea the Tree Commission is the last word on trees and Mr. Weldin thinks there needs to be a process beyond the Tree Commission if someone does not agree with our decisions. Mr. Patterson reminded the Commission their ordinance addresses just that. They can appeal to the Board of Adjustment, which is comprised of the Mayor, City Attorney and City Engineer, and then the Tree Commission can argue their case in front of the Board of Adjustment and present witnesses such as the City Arborist.
Mr. Patterson said Mr. Weldin’s first draft of a “Green Infrastructure Ordinance” went through a series of appeals which ended up with the Building Committee that was formed recently under new codes. Mr. Patterson said according to one member of the Building Code Committee Mr. Weldin never discussed the matter of them being an appeal Board about trees. In the latest version submitted Mr. Weldin makes Mr. Hall the final arbiter in tree cases. Members noted they think Mr. Hall and Mr. Weldin are “lock step” in the types of trees they want on city streets.
The Tree Commission could never agree to make Mr. Hall the final arbiter. The members agreed they could concede to a third party or the Board of Adjustment. Discussion continued about the
ordinance. Chairperson Patterson added Mr. Weldin suggested he get together with the Chairman and work out a compromise but Mr. Patterson said he doesn’t know if Mr. Weldin is the Council’s representative or not, or is Council going to address the Commission as a body. Mr. Patterson said he e-mailed Mr. Weldin and told him he needs to work with the Tree Commission or its representatives that he as Chairman is not the Tree Commission.
It is not even clear if City Council has read the “Green Infrastructure Ordinance”. Mr. Patterson said by the transcript of the October 12 Council meeting Chris Castagno was the only one who had scene or read the ordinance. As for a public hearing, Mr. Patterson said he has not been notified of a date for a public hearing.
A comment from the floor stated that many of the citizens of New Castle appreciate the work the Tree Commission is dong and support its efforts. Chairperson Patterson accepted this statement on behalf of the Tree Commission.
Sidewalks 926 & 928 Clayton Street
Chairperson Patterson reported that he met with residents from these areas and they have a lot of questions about sidewalks. When a homeowner is cited in town for a violation they need a representative from the Tree Commission along with the City to tell them what they need to do.
Someone from the City’s Building Department might also be involved to provide guidance to the homeowner to remedy the problem.
A comment received from the floor said not all sidewalk problems in the City are caused by trees. There are many sidewalks in need of repair of loose bricks, missing bricks and such. Ms. Keyser added that the Tree Commission agrees we need an ordinance, but we think it has to have some language in the code that will say that we can preserve the tree and repair the sidewalk so it is safe, not just say it is a nuisance and cut it down. It will take some careful crafting, but can be done so the preservation of the trees is part of the philosophy.
Sidewalks, Methodist Church, Delaware Street
Chairperson Patterson reported that he has requested a meeting with the church group and its contractor about the sidewalk project they wish to do.
Removals
Octavio Trees- The Chairman asked Bob Rizzardi, the Commission’s tree removal representative, to report on the condition of two small maples at 7th and South Streets by the Octavio’s residence. Mr. Rizzardi said he looked at both trees and recommends they both be taken down. Mr. White made a motion to remove the two small trees at the Octavio property. Ms. Keyser seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
915 Clayton Street, Amstel House – Chairperson Patterson reported that he had filed a report of the damage to the 915 Clayton Street tree to the police department and but has not heard from them to date. Mr. Miller expressed concern that no follow up has taken place by the police department. Mr. Patterson also reported the tree at Delaware Street by 4th Street next to the
Page 4
Amstel House was dead. Ms. Keyser made a motion to remove the trees at these locations. Lillian Shue seconded the motion which was passed unanimously.
919 Clayton Street- Chairperson Patterson said he advised the City on the status of the tree at 919 Clayton street and whether they will pursue Mr. DeAscanis for the value of the tree in
question, the grinding of the stump and replacement tree. Mr. Patterson said he has had no response. Mr. Patterson said he became more concerned about the stability of the tree after speaking with the homeowner and spoke with Mr. Weldin. Mr. Patterson said it was agreed if Mr. DeAscanis does not remove the tree by Friday, 11/5/04, that it would come down at Tree Commission expense. Mr. Weldin felt this was appropriate action. Mr. DiAscanis’ son has been in contact with Mr. Patterson and offered to remedy the problem at their cost. Chairperson Patterson spoke to Mr. Castagno and asked for a legal opinion from the City on reimbursement but has not heard anything to date. Mr. Patterson said the City owns the trees, it is their property; we are there to protect the trees. I am asking them who is to take action. Chairperson Patterson made a motion that appropriate action will be taken at 919 Clayton Street to remove damaged tree if said tree is not removed by Friday, 11/5/04. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that passed unanimously.
Gebhart Sycamore - Mr. White reported we did not get any feedback from the Delaware Cooperative Extension Program nor the Penn State Cooperative Extension Program. He moved to defer this matter to Russ Carlson to determine a course of action. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
2nd Street Female Ginkgo – After a brief discussion it was agreed that female ginkgos were already decided by the Commission not to be appropriate street trees, Ms. Keyser made a motion to remove this tree. Mr. White seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Tribute to Mr. Huber – Mr. White suggested dedicating a tree in Mr. Huber’s honor in the City of New Castle. Generally we put these trees in Battery Park. Everyone was in agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
