Glen Ellyn debates how much to regulate tree removal

It appears Glen Ellyn officials agree with the concept of preserving trees in the village, but there’s disagreement about how far revisions to a tree preservation ordinance should go.

The village board will consider proposed changes to rules adopted in 1998 intended to encourage the preservation of trees on public and private land during property development projects. The village’s environmental commission has been reviewing changes to the ordinance for the past 10 months. It was last revised in 2001.

Among the pane’s recommendations: Private property owners should pay a fee and the cost of a permit to remove any healthy, noninvasive tree with a diameter of 4 inches or greater. If they wanted to remove a dead, diseased or invasive tree, they wouldn’t be fined but still charged for a permit.

The commission has also called on the village board to consider establishing fines for those who violate the regulations. Revenue from permit fees and fines would be deposited in a fund that would pay for the protection and planting of trees in the village.

Adam Kreuzer, the commission’s chairman, said at a village board meeting Monday that the village should do what it can to preserve trees — especially large ones — because of their role in stormwater management and also for aesthetic reasons.

“When I talk to people about why they move here, I hear frequently they like Glen Ellyn because of the trees. We’re not just another city. We’re a tree city,” Kreuzer said. “Efforts to develop this town, while good-intentioned, have lost sight of that. We’ve lost a lot of trees.”

The commission has recommended a “base” proposal, along with an “above and beyond” recommendation, which includes the permitting and fee regulations.

Village administrators have expressed reservations about some of those provisions, so they’ve proposed their own version of an updated tree preservation ordinance for the village board to consider.

Interim Village Manager Terry Burgard said his recommendation would maintain property owner control over private trees and not include a commission proposal to require tree contractors to register with the village.

Planning and Development Director Staci Hulseberg said that process has the potential to consume staff time, and it could create a cost that might be passed on to property owners.

She also said the original ordinance was meant to be “more for education than regulation.”

The village board will again discuss the proposed changes to the ordinance May 16.