Public Works Committee
Regular MeetingNorthbrook, IL · March 19, 2013
Minutes
Approved
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MARCH 19, 2013
Chairman Heller called the meeting to order in the Terrace Study of the Village Hall at 6:40PM. On roll call,
present were: Trustees Buehler and Israel; also present: Director of Public Works K. Hamill, Assistant Public
Works Director M. Morrison, Public Works Analyst A. Letson, Director of Development and Planning Services T.
Poupard, Tree Preservationist Terry Cichocki, Tree Mark Cacioppo, Attorney S. Weiss and Village Clerk Debbie
Ford
Call to Order.
Hear from the Audience
None
Heritage Tree Removal Request
Trustee Heller began by listing the three issues he felt the Committee needs to consider: 1) under
Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code (Tree Protection and Preservation, Vegetation) is there any action that can
be taken as it relates to the applicants request; 2) Does the committee not want to consider amendments to
Chapter 25-13 if the committee does want to amend Chapter 25, what recommendation do they want to make
to the Board of Trustees.
Trustee Heller stated in his opinion, based on the circumstances presented the Code as it is mandatory
and the removal of the Heritage tree is prohibited.
Village Attorney Stewart Weiss discussed Section 25-13 of the Municipal Code, noting that Subsection
25013(a) (1)(a) as currently written, specifically prohibits the removal of heritage trees located in a required
yard. Attorney Weiss noted other circumstances where the Board of Trustees had approved by resolution to
remove a heritage tree, but presently there is no avenue to remove a heritage tree located in a required yard.
Trustees Buehler and Israel confirmed they agreed. Trustee Buehler briefly gave a history on how the tree
ordinance was created. He informed the applicant he would have to be convinced the Code needs to be
changed. Trustee Buehler stated he would need more information before he could consider amending the
Code. The question is whether the tree ordinance is doing what the Board originally intended it to do or not?
Trustee Heller asked Director of Public Works, Kelly Hamill to address the second issue.
Director Hamill reviewed and explained the Tree Classifications in the Code: Protected tree; land mark
tree; heritage tree; nuisance tree. He then reviewed the required vs. non required yard, and how a tree may
be removed from any part of the lot when it has been determined to be a nuisance, hazard, or unlawful
obstruction on the public right of way. Director Hamill then discussed how staff reviews a request for removal.
P a g e |2 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
He explained staff first works with the applicant to develop alternatives that preserve as many trees as
possible while still allowing for the development of the property. Director Hamill stated if there are no
reasonable options staff will recommend removal.
Director Hamill then reviewed the issue at 1300 Wendy Drive. He displayed a view of the property and
where the tree is located. Director Hamill stated the tree is in healthy shape, but substantial branches are
missing and he discussed the damage due to storms, etc.
Trustee Buehler questioned Village Forester Terry Cichocki. He asked if this is common and she stated
yes. Ms. Cichocki noted it appears the tree also has been pruned.
Director Hamill then displayed photos of the tree in question and its location in relationship to the
present home’s foundation. He explained the tree was probably smaller when the house was built, but since
has grown substantially.
Trustee Israel questioned where the proposed house is to be located. The builder, Tom Kenny, stated
the new foundation would be three feet to the north of the tree. He also explained the issue related with the
tree and the building of the new home. Mr. Kenny pointed out the property line is presently 14 feet from the
old house. The new house will be nine feet from the property line. In response, Trustee Buehler asked a
number of questions related to the new home construction in relation to the tree.
Mr. Kenny discussed the risks as he saw them with the potential of the heritage tree falling once the
foundation of the existing home is removed. He stated the tree's canopy is out of balance. The lack of roots
on one side along with other factors greatly increases the possibility of the tree falling. Mr. Kenny then
informed the committee how his company has received LEED certification for buildings it has constructed and
that they are a green building company. With that being said, he cannot find a way to save the tree. Mr.
Kenny stated the tree is not interfering with the proposed new building; the issue is it is falling over.
Trustee Heller asked if the real concern is with building the house and then the tree falling over.
Mr. Kenny stated yes. He then explained they want to take down the tree and use the wood and re-
purpose it in this particular building. Mr. Kenny explained the use of this one tree would save the two healthy
trees it would take to build the wood floor in the new home. He stated this is an opportunity to harvest this
tree. Mr. Kenny stated what he needs is the permit to harvest the tree and he hopes the Committee can find
a way to eliminate the fee in lieu of replacement. He informed the Committee members that it will cost
$9,000 to harvest the tree and re-use it on the site. Mr. Kenny stated he is looking to have the fee in lieu of
replacement waived, since the plan is to reuse the heritage tree.
Director Hamill informed the Committee that staff reviewed the possibility of relocating the proposed
new structure to save the tree and avoid damaging the root system, but they concluded they were unable to
stabilize the tree and that moving the building envelope of the proposed house would jeopardize the other
heritage trees located on the property.
P a g e |3 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
Trustee Israel asked if a new planting plan has been proposed for the property. In response, Mr.
Kenny stated it has not been determined yet.
Director Hamill continued, stating even if the same foundation wall is reused the tree would still be
questionable structurally. He noted this is a perfect example of how the Code may not address all situations.
Director Hamill gave staff’s assessment of the tree. The tree is located seven feet away from the existing
foundation. Moving the proposed new home’s footprint backward or forward would conflict with one of the
five other heritage trees on the property. If the contractor were to try to work around the tree, the excavation
for the new foundation would likely kill the tree; excavation of the foundation would likely compromise the
tree’s root system.
Trustee Buehler asked if there was a copy of the tree preservation plan for this site for Committee to
review.
Director Hamill provided a copy for the Committee to review. He then discussed the other proposed
trees to be removed and then reviewed the proposed new house on the site in relationship to trees.
Mr. Kenny explained he supported the Municipal Code as it relates to heritage trees, but felt under
such circumstances this tree could be a hazard.
Trustee Israel stated he felt it should be removed for safety purposes, but questioned how to mitigate
the situation? He stated he was not in favor of waiving the fee in lieu and would prefer to see an additional
tree or trees on the property. He stated a fee in lieu of replacement on the property where there is no
opportunity to increase the canopy is different.
Trustee Heller emphasized this was not an option under the present code. He then asked Director
Hamill to review staff’s proposed changes to the Municipal Code. Trustee Heller stated he would like to go
through the proposed changes, determine if the Committee is in favor of considering the amendments; and if
they are when and how will this affect the issue at hand.
Trustee Buehler stated harvesting the lumber does not go along with the reason for creating the code.
Mr. Kenny stated that needs to be changed.
Trustee Buehler explained as elected officials it is their responsibility to look at what is important in
Northbrook. Mr. Kenny questioned if they were not concerned with the global issue? Trustee Buehler stated
it is their job to consider what is important here in Northbrook. Mr. Kenny stated he wanted to get the small
town thinking in perspective. He noted he built the first ecological home in Northbrook.
Trustee Israel stated he felt Trustee Buehler’s perspective is important.
Mr. Kenny explained he was trying to promote his cause so others can do it on properties in
Northbrook. He stated he agreed with adding to the canopy, but felt the Committee needs to look at the
overall canopy, not that just in Northbrook.
P a g e |4 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
Trustee Heller stated he felt this discussion is important, but if the Committee decides to not change
the Code, none of this can happen.
Attorney Weiss questioned if the exemption for hazardous trees in Section 25-11(e) would be
applicable in this situation? Director Hamill stated it would not apply because the tree is only in danger of
falling if construction occurs.
Trustee Buehler commented he was not sure if the Code presently addresses such a unique issue as
this.
Director Hamill then reviewed Section 25 of the Municipal Code. He stated it was amended in 2001,
and since then staff has determined some sections need to be clarified and updated to reflect current, best
practices. Director Hamill explained some substantive changes and administrative/clerical changes would be
needed. He reviewed proposed changes to Sections 25-13(a) (1) Heritage trees and (2) Landmark trees.
Trustee Heller questioned if the Committee members were in agreement with the proposed changes:
to first allow staff to review the application and then during the appeal process the Public Works Committee
and then the Board of Trustees would review. Trustee Heller stated he was thinking that it should
automatically go to the Public Works Committee first, before staff input.
Director Hamill explained that by then staff would have reviewed it and worked with property
owner/developer to develop the site so the tree would not have to be removed. In this case, the important
point is to make sure any determination is made by those who make the decision.
In response to Trustee Heller’s question if the other members are in favor of the proposed
amendments, Trustee Israel stated yes and Trustee Buehler commented he was not sure if 30 days is enough
time to call a meeting. The Committee discussed scheduling meetings as early as practical.
Director Hamill discussed how the Code addressed landmark trees and he suggested amending the
process so that it mirrors the Code as it relates to heritage trees. He stated this would streamline the process
and make it consistent.
Director of Development and Planning Services, Tom Poupard, discussed how the scheduling between
the Public Works Committee and the Board of Trustees Meeting sometimes delays the process.
Mr. Kenny explained to the Board how a delay could increase the applicant’s costs and give the
impression Northbrook is non-friendly to the building community. He stated this may encourage applicants to
build in other communities.
Attorney Weiss suggested as an alternative to have language stating that a tree permit recommended
by the Public Works Committee would be considered at the next scheduled regular Board meeting.
Director Hamill stated the proposed process is for unique circumstances, such as we have discussed
tonight. The proposed amendments are not intended to be a side step around the Tree Preservation
Ordinance. He reviewed the proposed changes to the Code. Director Hamill explained this process allows the
P a g e |5 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
Public Works Committee and the Board of Trustees to review requests for the removal of heritage trees
regardless of their location on the property. Director Hamill stated the amendments would provide property
owners with a process when they have no other option than to remove a heritage tree.
Director Hamill then reviewed what impact the Code change would have. He stated heritage trees
may be removed upon the adoption of a resolution. It allows the Village to set conditions for the removal of a
heritage or landmark tree.
Trustee Buehler noted his concern with lumping heritage and landmark trees together. He noted he
would like the rest of the Board of Trustees to know the reasoning for why the original ordinance was put in
place.
Trustee Israel questioned if there is a value to developers to reuse the wood of the heritage tree.
Mr. Kenny explained how the wood has been utilized in the past. Trustee Israel discussed the dual value of
reusing the wood – to the environment and to the homeowner when it is reused in the home.
Director Hamill continued to discuss the potential modifications to the Village’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance, the proposed changes to the Annual Fee Ordinance and provided a summary of the administrative
/clerical changes. He reviewed the following proposed changes (i) the definition of "caliper" would be added
to the Code; (ii) amendments to the language dealing with trees that have multiple trunks; (iii) allowing for the
deposit of cash escrows for smaller projects; (iv) an amendment to require upfront payment of fee in lieu of
charges and planting clarification; (v) change in plan submission requirements; (vi) change in tree protection
fencing requirements; (vii) clarification on Public Work’s planning timeline; and (viii) an update of sources used
for determining what weeds are considered a nuisance.
Trustee Heller applauded staff for the job they did and thanked Mr. Kenny. He then asked for
comments.
Trustee Israel explained he understood if construction occurs on the site in question the heritage tree
becomes a hazard. The question is how to mitigate the situation and he felt the proposed amendments to the
Code addresses such concerns. When something like this happens and a tree absolutely has to be removed, a
mechanism needs to be put in place to remove it.
Trustee Heller stated the Committee will need to bring a recommendation to the Board at its April 16,
2013 meeting and he felt they should move forward with the proposed amendments. He noted that two
certified arborist are telling us it is time to change.
Trustee Buehler discussed when the Board originally drafted the Tree Ordinance. He explained that to
him the biggest problem is the R5, narrow lot. There is not a lot of cushion on it. He stated that if it were a R2
lot, this would not be an issue. Trustee Buehler noted staff is recommending the change, and he has no issue
with discussing it with the Board, but he would like staff to find the old reports. He stated he felt using them
P a g e |6 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
as a source of reference would help the others. Trustee Buehler stated he really could not find a way to safely
save the heritage tree at 1300 Wendy.
Trustee Buehler moved, seconded by Trustee Israel, to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter
25 of the Municipal Code.
Trustee Heller then discussed how to address the heritage tree at 1300 Wendy Drive, under the
proposed new Code. Mr. Kenny stated clearly he did not want to take the heritage tree down. He explained
they have had the Village and other arborists look at the tree and all have recommended its removal. Mr.
Kenny explained their intent is to harvest the Heritage tree. He then discussed his concern with the canopy of
the existing tree and how he believed the tree will fall. Mr. Kenny stated he felt there was no way to support
the tree during construction. This is a particularly difficult situation. Mr. Kenny explained they need to
develop the site in a way that is economically feasible for the owner. He discussed the cost to remove the
heritage tree, and asked the Committee to consider removing the $8000 fee in lieu of replacement.
Trustee Israel stated under the current ordinance they could reduce the fee.
Trustee Heller reviewed the ordinance: authorize removal of heritage tree. The proposed Code
amendments would require a reforestation fee of $250 per inch DBH resulting in a fee of $8,125. He
suggested conditioning the permit approval on a requirement that the wood from tree must be milled for a
purpose other than firewood, mulch or wood chips and be used during construction of the new home; the
builder and homeowner must take aggressive measures to preserve all other heritage trees on the property
and those located on adjacent properties.
Mr. Kenny stated the cost is over $17,000 to re-use the tree as it is.
Trustee Buehler asked how many square feet are in the proposed home and Mr. Kenny answered.
Trustee Buehler stated the fee is just a faction of the total cost of the proposed home. Mr. Kenny stated it is a
big cost.
Trustee Heller explained how the Code benefits Northbrook. Mr. Kenny stated he felt the Committee
needs to think of more than just Northbrook.
Trustee Buehler discussed with Mr. Cacioppo the other trees being removed on the site and how they
will be replaced. Trustee Buehler stated it is his understanding there is not a lot of space for reforestation on
the site to reduce the replacement fee.
Trustee Israel stated it is not the goal of the Board to obtain the money; it is to replace the trees.
Mr. Kenny stated on this lot, replacement trees would not add to the lot.
Trustee Heller explained they want to give the applicant the opportunity to take the heritage tree
down.
Trustee Buehler explained the reasoning for doing it this way.
Ms. Cichocki explained the purpose for the fee in lieu.
P a g e |7 Public Works Committee Meeting March 19, 2013
Mr. Kenny stated the ecological benefit of using the heritage tree for the floors in the proposed home
and how it would save two other trees that would be used instead Trustee Heller stated he understands the
philosophy, but then explained why he was not convinced with Mr. Kenny’s argument.
Mr. Cacioppo asked Mr. Kenny if they thought of selling the heritage tree, instead of using the wood.
Mr. Kenny stated yes, and then explained they have a company that will pick up, cut and re-season the wood
to reuse. Mr. Cacioppo suggested selling the heritage tree wood to cover the planting costs. Mr. Kenny
explained another company would not purchase the tree for that price. It is a commodity.
Trustee Heller explained as the Board that is not our decision. We have a policy decision and it is for
Northbrook. We believe there should be a fee in lieu of replacement.
Mr. Kenny stated someone else’s canopy will suffer; we will need to take down two other landmark
sized trees to construct the floors. Mr. Cacioppo stated a lot of those trees are not coming from a virgin forest;
they are coming from a tree farm.
Trustee Israel moved, seconded by Trustee Buehler to approve the removal of the heritage tree, with
the fee in lieu of replacement and that wood of the Heritage tree must be milled for purpose and used for
construction of the home. Trustee Buehler stated the builder is welcome to address the full Board on the
issue.
Mr. Kenny stated he brought this issue forth in December, expecting a resolution this evening. But
now he needs to just move forward on taking the tree down and move forward with the construction of the
house. He stated the time to get permit is costing him. Mr. Kenny stated he did not think he would have to
wait for another meeting. He just asked that the Committee make its recommendation to the Board.
Adjourn
Trustee Buehler made a motion, seconded by Trustee Israel, that the meeting be adjourned. On voice vote,
the motion was approved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Debra J. Ford
Village Clerk
Agenda
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE
MARCH 19, 2013, 6:30 P.M., TERRACE ROOM
The Public Works Committee of the Village of Northbrook Board of Trustees will hold a meeting on
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. in the Terrace Room of the Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane,
Northbrook, Illinois. The following will be discussed.
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE
3. DISCUSSION: Heritage Tree Removal Request
4. DISCUSSION: Potential Modifications to the Village’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
5. ADJOURN
Please Note a “Light” Dinner will be
Todd Heller, Chair served for Board Members and staff
Public Works Committee attending
Members: Trustee Buehler
Trustee Israel
Village of Northbrook
Cook County, Illinois
March 19, 2013
The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in
order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the
accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm or Debbie Ford (847-
664-4014 or 847-664-4013 respectively) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable
accommodations for those persons. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, 564-8645, for
more information.
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Kelly Hamill, Director of Public Works
DATE: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Public Works Committee Agenda Items
The agenda for the Public Works Committee’s meeting contains two items. The first is a request to
remove a heritage tree in a required yard and the second is a review of proposed changes to Chapter 25
of the Northbrook Municipal Code dealing with tree protection and preservation. While the subject
matter of these issues is similar in nature, the agenda items are unique.
Request to Remove Heritage Tree
In February 2013, the Public Works Department received a request to remove a heritage tree at 1300
Wendy Drive as part of the construction of a new single family home. Staff and the property owner
have worked together to identify alternatives to removal of the tree but to no avail due to the
constraints of the site. The request is time sensitive as the project cannot move forward until the
approval or denial of the removal of the heritage tree has been decided.
Action Requested: Recommendation of approval or denial of the request. If approved, the request must
be approved by the Village Board, and would be scheduled for the meeting on April 16, 2013.
Review of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code
Staff has completed a review of Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code (Tree Protection and Preservation,
Vegetation) changes that can be made to better match industry best and our current practices. Perhaps
most significant amongst the changes is the instituting of a review process for the removal of heritage
trees in required yards and an update to our Annual Fee Ordinance to better match our costs.
Action Requested: Public Works Committee direction to staff to work with Village Attorney on drafting
changes to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code and any input on the proposed changes.
Staff will be present at the meeting to address any questions that may arise.
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Kelly Hamill, Director of Public Works
DATE: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Request for Heritage Tree Removal at 1300 Wendy Drive
In December 2012, Scott Simpson Builders on behalf of the property owner submitted plans for the
demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new home at 1300 Wendy Drive. In February
2013, the Public Works Department received a request for removal of a heritage tree as a component of
this project. The property currently has a 1950’s era single family home on a 1/3 acre lot with required
side yard setbacks of nine feet, and has a heritage tree located in the south side yard of the property.
The tree is a storm damaged, but healthy Red Oak heritage tree with a diameter of 32.5 inches (photos
of the tree and site are attached). With the submission of a demolition permit, the builder on behalf of
the homeowner also submitted an application for tree removal that included the Red Oak. Staff worked
with the builder and homeowner to evaluate different options for the site to avoid the removal of this
tree. Below are some of the circumstances impacting this heritage tree and the redevelopment of the
property with a new single family home:
1. The tree is growing in the south side yard seven (7) feet away from the existing foundation.
2. Moving the proposed building envelope further backward or forward would conflict with other
heritage trees on the property. There are five other heritage trees on the property.
3. Even if the builder were to try and work around the tree, the tree would more than likely die
because of the effect on its root system due to the over dig necessary to accommodate the new
foundation.
4. Additionally, the excavation of the foundation would likely compromise the tree’s root system
causing it to be unstable and pose a safety hazard for workers on the site or the property next
door.
It became clear during the review of the circumstances identified above that the tree would not survive
construction and that removal of this tree would be necessary for the construction of the new home.
As it is currently, the Village’s Municipal Code does not allow heritage trees to be removed when located
within a required yard as established in the Zoning Code. It does allow the removal of a heritage tree, by
Board approval, in the non-required yard, which is the buildable area of the property. The attached
diagram illustrates the required vs. non-required yards for a property.
Previous Resolutions adopted by the Village Board (03-R-52, 04-R-41, 05-R-30) have placed special
conditions on the removal of heritage trees. These special conditions have included requiring applicants
to use the wood for a purpose other than firewood in addition to paying a replacement fee. The
replacement fee has ranged from $150 to $350 per diameter inch (if reforestation was not practical).
Page 1
The applicant has requested that the removal of the heritage tree be reviewed by the Public Works
Committee of the Village Board. Additionally, the property owner has requested that the Village waive
all reforestation fees because the applicant plans to mill the entire tree and use the wood in the new
home. The estimated cost of milling the tree is approximately $9,750.
One of the goals of the Tree Preservation Ordinance is to encourage coordination between property
owners and Village officials to allow for the coexistence of the enjoyment of private property rights and
the preservation of trees that are significant to the community. In the case of 1300 Wendy Drive, it has
been determined that the preservation of this heritage tree is not practical if the property owner wishes
to fully utilize their private property. The removal of a heritage tree has a negative effect on the
community’s urban forest and reforestation is the most effective way to minimize this effect. Generally,
it is preferred that trees be replanted on the lot from which a heritage tree was removed, however in
this case the lot already has a number of mature trees that would likely prevent new smaller trees from
surviving. Therefore, assessing a fee in-lieu of reforestation would allow the Village to replenish the
urban forest by planting parkway trees in other locations throughout the community.
As previously noted, the Village Board has authorized the removal of heritage trees under certain
conditions. Conditions have included milling the tree for a purpose other than firewood and paying a
reforestation fee that has ranged from $150 to $350 per diameter inch. Staff is recommending that the
property owner be required to pay a reforestation fee of $250 per diameter inch, for a total of $8,125,
and mill the tree for a purpose other than firewood, mulch, or woodchips and use the wood during
construction of the new home.
In summary, staff recommends the Public Works Committee permit the removal of the heritage tree in
question at 1300 Wendy Lane with the following stipulations:
A fee of $250 per DBH inch be assessed for the removal of the tree.
The wood from the tree must be milled for a purpose other than firewood, mulch, or wood
chips and be re-used during the construction on the property.
The builder and homeowner must take aggressive measures to preserve all other heritage trees
on the property and those located on adjacent properties.
Staff will be present at the meeting to answer any questions that may arise.
Attachments
Attachment #1: Photos of Heritage Tree and Property at 1300 Wendy Drive
Attachment #2: Required v. Non-Required Yard Diagram
Attachment #3: Previous Resolutions Permitting Removal of Heritage Trees
Attachment #4: Letter from Scott Simpson Builders Re: Heritage Tree Removal Request
Page 2
Attachment #1:
Photos of Heritage Tree and Property at 1300 Wendy Drive
Page 3
32.5-inch heritage Red Oak adjacent (left) to the house at 1300 Wendy Drive
32.5-inch heritage Red Oak next to the house at 1300 Wendy Drive – View from side yard
Page 4
32.5-inch heritage Red Oak next to the house at 1300 Wendy Drive – View from sidewalk
Page 5
Attachment #2:
Required v. Non-Required Yard Diagram
Page 6
Page 7
Attachment #3:
Previous Resolutions Permitting Removal of Heritage Trees
Page 8
READ ONLY DO NOT CHANGE DOCUMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 03-R-52
The Northbrook Municipal Code provides that heritage trees, a protected class of tree as
defined by the Code, which are not located in a required yard, may only be removed upon approval of
the Board of Trustees, by resolution duly adopted. At their regular Board meeting of April 8 th the Board
heard an appeal from the seller and prospective purchaser of 1026 Hillside to remove a 21-inch
Shagbark hickory, which is defined as a heritage tree. The tree is situated very close to the foundation of
an existing 65-year-old house which is tentatively slated for tear down and reconstruction. A contingent
purchase contract is pending. After testimony and discussion, staff was advised to further assess the
site and the matter was continued to the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 13 th.
Staff thoroughly re-inspected the site, talked to the two realtors and seller’s attorney and
prepared several exhibits and a summary memorandum. Certain Board members also independently
visited the site prior to the meeting. It was the consensus of the Board, that due to the character and
site specific constraints on this particular parcel, including the existence of 6 other landmark or heritage
trees, and two additional heritage trees situated at the lot lines to the immediate north and south, that
the tree could be removed, subject to certain conditions. It was agreed the tree shall be preserved until
such time as the transfer of property is complete and there is an approved plan for a new house on the
site, compliance with all applicable R-4 Zoning district standards without variance, and construction is
imminent. At that time the Tree Preservation Officer is authorized to issue a conditional permit subject
to the following:
Receipt of the proposed drawings and building permit application that make it clear that
preservation of said Shagbark hickory tree is not practical or recommended.
Receipt of a check in the amount of $5,250 (in lieu of replacement with hickories or oaks
on site at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 for every inch diameter at breast height).
Agreement by the new owner that their architect, builder and subcontractors shall take
aggressive measures to preserve all other landmark and heritage trees on the lot.
Agreement by the new owner that they shall attempt to have the hickory lumber
harvested and milled for possible use as veneer, furniture, cabinets, tool handles, shelves,
mantles or some other higher use than for firewood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Northbrook, County of Cook and State of Illinois, THAT:
Section 1.
The Village Manager is hereby authorized to direct Public Works staff to issue a tree removal
permit subject to the above conditions.
PASSED: This 22nd day of April, 2003.
AYES: (5) Trustees Frum, Karagianis, Donewald, Meek, and
President Damisch
NAYS: (1) Trustee Jaeger
ABSENT: (1) Trustee Buehler
Page 9
ABSTAIN: (0)
/s/ Mark W. Damisch
Village President
ATTEST:
/s/ Lona N. Louis
Village Clerk
Page 10
READ ONLY DO NOT CHANGE DOCUMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-R-41
The Northbrook Municipal Code provides that heritage trees, a protected class of tree as
defined by the Ordinance No. 01-22, which are not located in a required yard, may only be removed
upon approval of the Board of Trustees, by resolution duly adopted. At a Public Works Committee
meeting on April 13th, Trustees heard an appeal from the agent/general contractor, Alex Fogel, of
the current owner, Oleg Levit, of 1450 Grant Road. The substance of the appeal was to seek
permission to remove one 34-inch and one 50-inch White oak, which are defined as heritage trees.
In addition, permission was requested to remove four landmark White oaks.
The trees are situated in the yard of an existing 50-year-old ranch style house, which is
slated for demolition and reconstruction with a 2-story house with a much larger footprint. After
testimony and discussion about the nature of this prime wooded site and the number of other
valuable landmark and heritage trees remaining, it was motioned and seconded to recommend to
the full Village Board to allow conditional removal of the trees, except for one landmark tree that
may be preserved if the detached 2-car garage can be relocated or removed from the scope of the
project. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Village’s Tree Preservation Officer be
authorized to issue a conditional permit subject to compliance with the following:
Receipt of documentation from Jennifer Maisch, Zoning Officer, that the 2-car garage can
be moved into the setback in order to save (tree 38), a 21-inch landmark White oak tree.
If, after Zoning Board of Appeals review, this solution is deemed not practical, Mr. Levit
must agree to compensate the Village Tree Replacement Fund $3,150 for the loss of this
tree.
Receipt of a check in the amount of $12,600 (in lieu of replacement with native hickories
or oaks on site at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 for every inch diameter at breast height) for the two
heritage White oaks, (tree 31) a 50-inch tree and (tree 35) a 34-inch tree, calculated at
$150/inch.
Agreement by the owner to replant at least 48 inches of new trees, as approved by the
Tree Preservation Officer, to compensate for the loss of three landmark White oaks
including, (tree 23) 13-inches, (tree 32) 17-inches, and (tree 34) 18-inches, or pay an
additional fee of $150/inch for any trees not replanted.
Agreement by the owner that their architect, builder and subcontractors shall take
aggressive measures to preserve all other landmark and heritage trees on this parcel.
These measures will include mulching the entire property and using chain link fence for
tree preservation fencing. In addition, there shall be monthly scheduled meetings at
which time progress and compliance with the terms of the entire agreement will be
discussed with the general contractors, subcontractors, the owner’s Certified Arborist, and
the Tree Preservation Officer.
Agreement by the owner that they shall attempt to have the White oak lumber harvested
and milled for possible use as veneer, furniture, cabinets, tool handles, shelves, mantles,
structural or accent beams or some other higher use than for firewood or wood chips.
Agreement by the owner, or his general contractor, to post a bond in the amount of
$21,300 for potential losses to additional heritage and landmark White oak trees that are
Page 11
in close proximity to the existing house. These trees include: (tree 14) 11-inches, (tree 15)
13-inches, (tree 16) 31-inches, (Tree 17) 21-inches, (Tree 26) 28-inches”, (Tree 29) 21-
inches and (Tree 30) 17-inches, for a total of 142”. The bond, less any possible
construction related losses, which will be deducted at the rate of $150/inch, will be
returned at the end of 3 years to Mr. Levit, and/or his general contractor, Alex Fogel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Northbrook, County of Cook and State of Illinois, THAT:
Section 1.
The Village Manager is hereby authorized to direct Public Works staff to issue a tree removal
permit subject to the conditions outlined above.
PASSED: This 27th day of April, 2004.
AYES: (6) Trustee Jaeger, Frum, Buehler, Donewald, Meek, and President Damisch
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (1) Trustee Karagianis
ABSTAIN: (0)
/s/ Mark W. Damisch _
Village President
ATTEST:
/s/ Lona N. Louis _
Village Clerk
Page 12
READ ONLY DO NOT CHANGE
RESOLUTION NO. 05-R-30
The Northbrook Municipal Code provides that heritage trees, a protected class of tree as
defined by the Code, which are not located in a required yard, may only be removed upon approval of
the Board of Trustees, by resolution duly adopted. A conflict involving protection of a healthy 32-inch
diameter white oak heritage tree recently developed at 1246 Caryn Terrace at the site of a new home
being constructed by David and Elaina Holpert. When it became apparent to the Village’s Tree
Preservation Officer that the subject tree appeared to be structurally compromised by the over dig for
the foundation, staff contacted the Village Manager and requested an opportunity to brief the Board at
their regular meeting of March 22nd. Upon review, the Board authorized the Director of Development to
place a “stop work order” on construction which was issued March 23rd.
On April 1st the Public Works Director hand delivered a detailed letter of explanation to the
owners about the nature of the Stop Work Order and alleged violations of Chapter 25 of the Municipal
Code. The Director was also authorized to re-review the facts of this matter and to determine if he
believed an agreed resolution of the issues was warranted.
The Director of Public Works met with staff on April 1st and with the excavator, project
manager and the Holperts on April 4th. After thorough review and reflection, it is his belief that up until
the week of March 14th that the owners and their agents had made good faith efforts to preserve the
subject tree as opposed to petitioning the Board for it’s removal. It was at this point where a
misunderstanding arose regarding allowed work in the vicinity of the tree. It is the Director’s
recommendation to the Board of Trustees that this matter be resolved and that the Tree Preservation
Officer be authorized to issue a conditional permit for removal of the compromised heritage tree subject
to the following terms, which shall also be included as a rider to the permit:
Receipt of a certified check from the Holperts in the amount of $11,200 for removal of the
heritage oak calculated at the rate of $350/per diameter inch (at breast height).
Agreement by the Holperts that they and their architect, builder and subcontractors shall
take aggressive measures to immediately protect and preserve all other remaining trees
on the lot and that they submit an updated construction activity plan showing such
measures.
Agreement by the Holperts that they shall make best efforts to have the white oak lumber
harvested from the trunk and milled for possible use as veneer, furniture, cabinets, tool
handles, shelves, mantles, or some other higher use than for firewood.
Agreement that staff shall be authorized to lift the stop order to enable footing and
foundation and other work to proceed without delay.
Waiver by the Holperts of any further claims against the Village regarding the subject tree;
and
Waiver by the Village of any further claims against the Holperts regarding the subject tree.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Northbrook, County of Cook and State of Illinois, THAT:
Section 1.
Page 13
The Village Manager is hereby authorized to direct Public Works staff to issue a tree removal
permit for removal of a 32-inch heritage tree at 1246 Caryn Terrace, Northbrook, Illinois subject to the
above conditions.
PASSED: This 12th day of April, 2005.
AYES: (7) Trustees Jaeger, Frum, Karagianis, Buehler, Donewald,
Meek, and President Damisch
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
ABSTAIN: (0)
/s/ Mark W. Damisch
Village President
ATTEST:
/s/ Lona N. Louis
Village Clerk
Page 14
READ ONLY DO NOT CHANGE
RESOLUTION NO. 07-R-123
The Northbrook Municipal Code provides that heritage trees, a protected class of tree as
defined by the Code, which are not located in a required yard, may only be removed upon approval of
the Board of Trustees, by resolution duly adopted.
Upon investigation of a complaint of large limbs that had fallen from a 36” Red Oak at 1316
Glen Oak onto their neighbors sidewalk, the Village’s Tree Preservation Officer used a resistograph, a
scientific instrument to detect and measure decay, to determine the structural integrity and internal
decay of this tree. The resistograph instrument was inserted into the trunk at breast height (4½’) and
the results concluded the tree needs to be removed. The instrument recorded, beginning from the
outside diameter, there is approximately 1½” of bark; 2” of structural sound timber; 29” of decayed
wood, 2” of structural sound timber and 1½” of bark resulting in 88% of the trunk in the state of decay.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Northbrook, County of Cook and State of Illinois, THAT:
Section 1.
The Village Manager is hereby authorized to direct Public Works staff to issue a tree removal
permit subject to the above conditions.
PASSED: This 14th day of August, 2007.
AYES: (6) Trustees Frum, Karagianis, Buehler, Scolaro, Heller, and Kole
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
ABSTAIN: (0)
/s/ Eugene Marks
Village President
ATTEST:
/s/ Debra J. Ford
Village Clerk
Page 15
Attachment #4:
Letter from Scott Simpson Builders Re: Heritage Tree Removal
Request
Page 16
To: Public Works Committee/Kelly Hamill, Director of Public Works
CC: Terry Cichocki
Date: 2-7-13
Re: 1300 Wendy Drive- Heritage Tree Removal Request
We are writing to you about our concern for the survival of the 32” Heritage red oak
tree on the property to be developed at 1300 Wendy. This tree lies outside the
foundation plan but would be compromised during the new house excavation. Terry
Cichocki has visited the site. She recommends removal of this tree because of condition
and qualities of the tree both from storm damage and dieback of the crown, that it will
not survive the impact of construction.
She recommends a required replacement fee of $250 per diameter inch to be assessed,
totaling $8,000.00.
As green building contractors we would like to suggest an alternative approach. We
have consulted our arborist, Bruce Horigan of Horigan Urban Forest products. He has
suggested removing the red oak and harvesting the lumber for reuse in the new house.
We believe this provides the best option for the community and environment. By
harvesting the oak for re-use in the new building we avoid the total loss of a heritage
oak as well as eliminate the need to harvest two other red oak trees from a distant
hardwood forest.
Our forest products contractor estimates that 1,000 bd ft. of red oak would be the yield
of this particular tree. The estimated harvesting cost would be $9,750.00.
The replacement fee and the red oak harvesting cost would total $17,750.00. The total
cost of removing the tree makes the harvesting option cost prohibitive. We would like
to explore the possibility of having the Village waive the replacement fee so we can
harvest the wood and avoid the total loss of this tree, as well as the harvesting of two
other trees from another hardwood forest.
Thomas F. Kenny
847-863-8606
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Kelly Hamill, Director of Public Works
DATE: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Code
The Village’s Tree Preservation Ordinance was first enacted in 1999, in response to the construction boom
resulting in numerous single family home demolitions by speculative buyers and builders that saw lots
being clear cut of their trees to make construction easier and reduce construction costs. The Ordinance,
included in the Municipal Code as Chapter 25 (Tree Protection and Preservation, Vegetation), seeks to
protect, preserve, replace, plant, and maintain trees on public and private property throughout the
Village.
This section of the code was amended in 2001 to further enhance tree protection and preservation
requirements. It also provided additional clarifications and definitions of terms which help provide
additional guidance on administration of the code as well. One of the most important amendments to the
code at this time was to state that one of the purposes of these regulations was to:
“…Encourage coordination between property owners and village officials to allow for the
coexistence of the enjoyment of private property rights and the preservation of trees that are
significant to the village and worthy of protection;”
In the 12 years since Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code was last reviewed and amended, staff has worked
to implement the tree preservation regulations in a fair and balanced way. This has included putting in
place processes for the review of tree removal permits, as well as building and engineering plans, to
ensure that builders are meeting their obligations when it comes to tree preservation while still making
logical, common sense decisions and recommendations. However, it has been found that some sections of
the Code need to be again clarified and updated to reflect current best practices.
Staff is seeking direction on the proposed amendments to be considered by the Public Works Committee.
If the Committee directs staff to move forward with any or all of these proposed changes, a draft
Ordinance can be placed on the agenda for April 16 for consideration by the Village Board. A draft of the
proposed changes is included with this memo as Attachment #1 and has been broken out into categories.
Substantive changes and administrative/clerical changes and listed within the order they appear in the
code where it has made sense to do so.
Below, the descriptions of the proposed changes to the Code and the projected impact of the changes are
included herein for each item. These items are not in order as they appear in the Code but are arranged
into groups which indicate substantive changes and lesser administrative/clerical changes. The sections of
the Code where these recommended changes are found are in parenthesis.
Page 1
Substantive Changes:
Proposed Change to Section 25-13(a): Permit the Removal of Heritage Trees in the Require Yard
Description of Change: Allow for the review of requests to remove heritage trees by the Public
Works Committee with final decision by the Village Board. Also clarifies the Village Board’s ability
to place conditions on the approval of the removal of a landmark or heritage tree.
The Village’s Municipal Code currently prohibits the removal of heritage trees in required yards.
Implementing a process in which property owners who believe they have no other option than to
remove a heritage tree from their property to fully utilize their land could bring their request to
the Public Works Committee for review and then to the Village Board for their final approval or
denial.
Impact of Change: The Public Works Committee and Village Board will have the opportunity to
review and approve/deny a request for the removal of a heritage tree. This process will allow the
Village to work with property owners who may have to remove a heritage tree while still working
to achieve the goals of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. It allows the Village to place conditions
(i.e. wood must be re-used for a higher purpose than firewood) on the removal of a heritage tree.
It would also require the replanting on an inch for inch basis or payment of fee in-lieu of planting
fee for a tree that may die as a result of construction after the work and all security guarantees
have been closed out.
Proposed Change to 25-13(c)(3): Landmark and Heritage Tree Replacement Requirements
Description of Change: This proposed change would eliminate the waiver for replanting on a
property or payment of the fee in-lieu of replanting when the removal of a landmark or heritage
tree is requested on a property that has a ratio of 12 inches per 1,000 square feet of required
yards.
Impact of Change: This change recognizes the value of landmark and heritage trees and helps to
promote the overall health and sustainability of the urban forest.
Proposed Change to Annual Fee Ordinance: Establish a Fee In-Lieu of for the Removal of
Heritage Trees
Description of Change: Creates a fee in-lieu for the removal of Heritage Trees in the amount of
$250 per diameter inch.
Impact of Change: Establishing a set per inch fee for the removal of heritage trees will provide
consistency in the application of monetary assessments giving the applicant some degree of
certainty of what the financial impact of the tree removal might be. At the same time, the change
would not limit the Village Board’s discretion to put other caveats on the approval of such a
permit.
Proposed Change to Annual Fee Ordinance: Amend the Fees In-Lieu of for Removal of Protected
and Landmark Trees
Description of Change: Increasing the fee in-lieu of replanting for the removal of protected trees
(from $100/diameter inch to $150/diameter inch) and landmark trees (from $150/diameter inch
to $200/diameter inch).
Impact of Change: Amending the costs for protected and landmark trees to put them in line with
the replacement on an inch for inch basis of what a new 2” DBH tree will cost. The cost for
removing a 6 inch diameter protected tree will increase from $600 to $900 and the cost for
Page 2
removing a 12” landmark tree will increase from $1,800 to $2,400. This will also put the removal
cost of a protected tree equals what the fee for the removal of a parkway tree is. It is important to
note that this fee is only applied when trees cannot or the property owner does not wish to
replant trees on the property.
Proposed Change to Section 25-13(c)(3): Nuisance Tree Replacement Requirements
Description of Change: Amends the Municipal Code requiring nuisance trees located in required
yards to be replanted on a tree for tree basis (as opposed to a ratio of diameter inches to square
footage of required yards).or if not re-planted, the fee in-lieu of re-planting be paid based on for a
tree for tree replacement.
Impact of Change: This change balances the value of nuisance trees while still recognizing the
value they provide to the urban forest in terms of shade, canopy, and aesthetics.
Administrative/Clerical Changes
Proposed Change to Section 25-2: Include the Definition of Caliper in the Code
Description of Change: Add the definition of the term “Caliper” to the Municipal Code.
Impact of Change: Simply adds clarity by including the definition of a word that is used multiple
times within the code.
Proposed Change to 25-2 and 25-10(a): Amend Language Dealing with Trees that Have Multiple
Trunks
Description of Change: Trees with multiple trunks that have an aggregate diameter of 12 inches
shall be classified as a protected tree. For example, a tree with 3 four-inch diameter trunks would
be considered a protected tree.
Impact of Change: Classifies trees with multiple trunks that have an aggregate diameter of 12
inches as a protected tree. In the past each trunk had to measure 6 inches in diameter to qualify
as a protected tree. This solution is in line with industry best practices and what is done in
neighboring communities such as Highland Park.
Proposed Change to Section 25-13(c) : Allow for Cash Escrows on Smaller Projects
Description of Change: Amend the Municipal Code to allow smaller projects to provide a cash
escrow in lieu of a letter of credit.
Impact of Change: This provides more flexibility for the applicant while ensuring sufficient
guarantee for the Village and aligns the code with our current practices.
Proposed Change to Section 25-13(c): Upfront Payment of Fee In Lieu of Charges and Planting
Clarification
Description of Change: This change would require payment of fee in lieu of replanting charges to
be paid upfront before a permit is issued and trees are removed. This change would also clarify
that Public Works will not plant trees on private property through the fee in lieu of process.
Impact of this Change: This would allow for the more timely receipt of fee in-lieu of payments and
avoid allocating staff time being used to try and collect fees owed. This also clarifies how fee in
lieu of charges are used to plant trees.
Page 3
Proposed Change to Section 25-14(b): Plan Submittal Clarification
Description of Change: This change allows tree preservation plans to be submitted on a scale of
no less than 1 inch equals 20 feet (the same scale as a plat of survey).
Impact of this Change: This change reflects industry best and our current practices while also
providing some flexibility to the applicant.
Proposed Changes to Section 25-14(b)(8): Approved Materials for Tree Protection Fencing
Description of Change: This amendment to the code eliminates the use of plastic snow fencing
and requires the use of wood slat fencing to protect trees during construction.
Impact of this Change: This will align our Municipal Code with our Engineering Details for tree
preservation fencing.
Proposed Change to Section 25-20(c): Clarify Planting Language
Description of Change: Amend language in the Municipal Code stating that Public Works will
conduct a spring planting of parkway trees each year. Public Works actually conducts either spring
or spring and fall tree plantings based on number of trees to be planted, number of trees
removed, the species of trees being planted.
Impact of Change: Clarifies language when Public Works conducts parkway tree plantings.
Proposed Change to Section 25-30: Determining What Type of Weed is Declared a Nuisance
Description of Change: This language amends the Municipal Code to identify the Illinois
Department of Agriculture as a reference for what plants are considered a nuisance weed.
Impact of Change: This aligns our code with our current practices.
Attachments
Attachment #1: Proposed Changes to Municipal Code Language
Page 4
Attachment #1:
Proposed Changes to Municipal Code Language
Page 5
Proposed Changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance
(All proposed deletions are struck through and all proposed additions are bold)
Substantive Changes
Sec. 25-13(a) – Special heritage and landmark tree regulations
(1) Heritage trees
a. If a heritage tree is located in a required yard, removal of such tree shall be prohibited
A tree permit for the removal of a heritage tree may be issued, and the tree may be
removed, only upon approval of the board of trustees, by resolution duly adopted.
Such resolution may include those conditions that the board of trustees determines
are necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Chapter.
b. b. If a heritage tree is not located in a required yard, a tree permit for its removal
may be issued, and the tree may be removed, only upon approval of the board of
trustees by resolution duly adopted.
(2) Landmark trees
a. If a landmark tree is located in a required yard, a tree permit for its removal may be
issued, and the tree may be removed, only upon approval of the board of trustees, by
resolution duly adopted. Such resolution may include those conditions that the
board of trustees determines are necessary and appropriate to accomplish the
purposes of this Chapter.
b. If a landmark tree is not located in a required yard, a tree permit for its removal may
be issued, and the tree may be removed, only after receipt by the village of a
replacement guarantee in accordance with subsection 25-13(c)(2) of this chapter.
25-13(c)(3) – Tree Replacement Formula
a. Protected, landmark, or heritage trees shall be replaced by trees in such number and
of appropriate species such that the sum of the caliper of the new trees that are to be
planted shall be equal to or greater than the sum of the DBH of the protected trees
that have been damaged or removed.
Annual Fee Ordinance
Section: 25-13(c) Tree Replacement Fee (All Non-Nuisance Trees, per inch at DBH) $100 $150
Section: 25-12(c) Tree Replacement Fee (Landmark Tree, per inch at DBH) $150 $200
Section: 25-12(c) Tree Replacement Fee (Heritage Tree, per inch at DBH) $250
Sec. 25-13(c)(3) – Regulated tree activity; permit required
(3) Tree replacement formula
…
Page 6
b. Nuisance trees larger than 6 inches DBH shall be replaced by on a tree for tree
basis with a new tree that has a caliper of 2½ inches. located in the required
yard a required front or corner side yard (as defined in the zoning code) shall be
replaced by trees in such number and of appropriate species such that the sum of
the caliper of the new trees that are to be planted shall be equal to or greater
than three (3) inches DBH for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area
in the combined required front and corner side yard of the property.
Administrative/Clerical Changes
Sec. 25-2 – Definitions
Caliper means the diameter of a tree trunk measured six (6) inches above the existing grade or
proposed planted grade. Caliper is usually used in reference to nursery stock for new plantings.
Sec. 25-2 – Definitions
Aggregate diameter means the combined diameter of a multiple trunk tree measured at breast
height (DBH).
Sec. 25-2 – Definitions
Protected tree means the following trees:
…
(2) Trees located in any required yard of any lot in the village with a DBH equal to or greater
than six (6) inches or having an aggregate diameter equal or greater than twelve (12)
inches.
Sec. 25-10 – Regulated tree activity; permit required
(a) Tree permit required. Except as expressly provided in subsection (b) of this section, no
person or governmental entity shall commence any regulated tree activity without first
obtaining a tree permit from the village manager. In addition, applications for tree permits
shall be required for all regulated tree activities involving trees with a DBH equal to or
greater than six (6) inches or having an aggregate diameter equal or greater than twelve
(12) inches.
25-13(c)(2) – Regulated tree activity; permit required
(2) Replacement guarantee
d. The village manager may use the replacement guarantee only where the applicant
fails to replace the total DBH of all protected trees actually removed, and only
after providing the applicant with thirty (30) days' notice of such failure to replace,
delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested. Any amount of the
replacement guarantees remaining after the replacement work has been
completed by the village shall be promptly returned to the applicant. Where the
replacement guarantee is secured by a letter of credit or cash escrow, the letter
of credit or cash escrow shall be drawn upon by the village only up to the amount
required to insure for the replacement of the total DBH of all protected trees
actually removed, and thereafter shall be returned to the applicant or cancelled
per the terms of the letter of credit by the village manager.
Page 7
Sec. 25-13(c) – Regulated tree activity; permit required
(7) Fee in lieu of tree replacement…
An applicant may request the department of public works to conduct the required
tree replacement upon the payment of in lieu of replacing damaged or removed
trees as required by Subsection 25-13(c)(1), the opportunity to pay a tree
replacement fee to the village. Acceptance of such a request shall be in the sole
discretion of the village manager. The village manager shall have no obligation to
accept such a request in the event that a request is accepted, the following
regulations shall apply:
a. The tree replacement fee for replacement trees required pursuant to the provisions
of this code shall be as set forth in the annual fee ordinance as to basis and amount.
b. The tree replacement fee must be received by the village manager prior to the
issuance of a permit for removal.
The village shall use funds received as payment of a fee in lieu of tree replacement to
plant trees on other nearby public rights-of-way, or other public property suitable to the
location of new trees.
Sec. 25-14 – Construction activity plan
(b) Contents of construction activity protection plan. A tree protection/construction activity
protection plan shall consist of a site plan of the property, of a scale no less than one (1)
inch equals ten (10) twenty (20) feet, on a topographic map if deemed necessary by the
village manager, upon which shall be graphically and accurately marked all of the
following information:
Sec. 25-14 – Construction activity plan
(b) Contents of construction activity protection plan.
(8) Detailed specifications for protection of protected trees, and for the protection of
trees other than protected trees that are reasonably likely to be damaged or
removed during implementation of the proposed construction activity, including,
without limitation, proposed measures such as construction pruning, root pruning,
installation of a retaining wall or approved material tree protection fencing high
visibility plastic mesh fencing, and augering of utility lines when such augering is
determined by the village manager to be necessary to improve the chances of tree
survival. Such specifications shall also include the identification and clear delineation
on the site plan of the construction activity area and the tree protection area, and
their respective perimeters.
Sec. 25-14 – Construction activity plan
(d) Tree protection area. The tree protection area shall be the area of the property included in
the construction activity area. No construction activity shall be conducted in the tree
protection area. All reasonable measures and protective materials shall be employed to
presence and safeguard trees located within the tree protection area. Protective materials
shall include, without limitation, the temporary installation of approved material tree
protection fencing high visibility plastic mesh fencing or other similar materials specifically
approved by the village manager. All such fencing shall be at least four (4) feet in height
and shall be secured to metal posts driven into the ground and spaced six (6) feet apart.
Page 8
All protective measures and materials shall be in place and approved by the village
manager prior to the commencement of any construction activity. Protective materials
shall not be removed until the village manager approves such removal after the
completion of all construction activity. No attachments, fences, or wires, other than those
approved for bracing, guying, or wrapping shall be attached to any protected tree during
the construction activity.
Sec. 25-20 – Additional parkway trees
(c) Time of installation. The owner of any lot or premises in the village having less than the
number of parkway trees required by subsection (a) of this section shall be required to
provide the required number of parkway trees at such time as the owner or applicant
undertakes any work on the lot or premises pursuant to a building or demolition permit
under this Code that involves the construction of a new structure or alteration or
enlargement of any building, structure or surface by adding an impervious area of four
hundred (400) square feet or more to the lot or premises on which it is located. Trees shall
be planted each spring or fall by the public works department as part of the annual
parkway tree planting program.
Sec. 25-30 – Weeds declared a nuisance
Any noxious weeds such as burdock, cocklebur, jimson, marijuana, multiflora rose, purple
loosestrife, ragweed (giant and common), teasel, or thistle (bull, Canada, sowthistle or musk) or
other weeds of like kind having similar undesirable characteristics as determined by the director of
public works, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture Dean of the College of Agriculture of the
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, found growing in any lot, tract, or parcel of land in the
village are declared to be a nuisance. It shall be unlawful to permit any such weeds to grow on any
lot, tract, or parcel of land in the village.
Page 9