Montclair's Tree Ordinance: Where We Stand Among Peer NJ Municipalities
Chapter 324 was introduced June 9, 2026. This page shows where Montclair's current ordinance, proposed draft, and Sustainable Montclair's amendment asks place us — compared to neighboring towns whose ordinances have been verified from primary text.
Tiers reflect the combination of scaled replacement ratios, species quality requirements, enforcement mechanisms (bond, CO hold), extraordinary tree protections, commercial/developer differentiation, and active Community Forestry Management Plan status.
| Municipality | Method | 6–12" DBH | 13–23" DBH | 24–35" DBH | 36"+ DBH | Fee-in-Lieu | Bond | CO Hold | Big Tree Protection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MontclairCurrent | Flat 1:1 | 1 tree | 1 tree | 1 tree | 1 tree | $250 | No | No | None |
| MontclairProposed | Count by tier | 1 tree | 2 trees or 1 Tier 1 | 3 trees (50% Tier 1) | 4 trees (50% Tier 1) | $450 | No | No* | LUB approval, no necessity standard |
| Highland Park | Count — differentiated | 1/2 (res/comm) | 2/4 (res/comm) | 2/4 (res/comm) | 3/6 (res/comm) | $600–$850 | Yes 1yr | N/A | Council vote required |
| Verona | Count by tier | 1 tree | 1–2 trees | 2 trees | PROHIBITED† | $400 | Yes 1yr | N/A | Council resolution required |
| Madison | Count by tier (highest) | 2 trees | 4–5 trees | 5–10 trees | DBH-equiv. | $400 | ? | ? | Written STMB notice required |
| Westfield | Caliper-based + count | 1 tree | 2–3 trees | 4 trees | 5 trees | At cost | Yes 2yr | YES ✓ | Permit required all 8"+ |
| Princeton | Count by tier | 1 tree | 1–2 trees | 2–3 trees | 4 trees | $550–$2,200 | ? | ? | Enforcement officer review |
| Glen Ridge | Count by tier | 1 tree | 2 trees | 3 trees | 3 trees | $450 | $100 escrow 2yr | ? | No specific standard |
| Summit | Flat 1:1 (12"+) | — | 1 tree | 1 tree | 1 tree | Market rate | ? | ? | City Forester may deny removal |
| West Caldwell | Count, differentiated | 0.5:1 | 1–2 trees | 2–3 trees | 3–5 trees | $200 | No | No | No standard; 60% canopy cap (dev.) |
* CO hold was in Montclair's attorney draft (§III.7(e)) and removed from the June 9, 2026 final text. Building permit hold remains. † Verona 36"+ PROHIBITED means the default is no removal — requires Zoning Official recommendation + Township Council Resolution to proceed.
| DBH removed | Montclair current | Montclair proposed | Highland Park (res.) | Highland Park (comm.) | Verona | Glen Ridge | Madison | Summit | Westfield | Princeton |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6–8" | — | 1 | — | — | 1 | 1 | 2 | — | — | — |
| 8–12" | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 |
| 13–16" | 1 | 2 (or 1 Tier 1) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 17–19" | 1 | 2 (or 1 Tier 1) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 20–23" | 1 | 2 (or 1 Tier 1) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 24–30" | 1 | 3 (≥50% Tier 1) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 4–5 | 2 |
| 31–35" | 1 | 3 (≥50% Tier 1) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| 36–38" | 1 | 4 (≥50% Tier 1) | 3 | 6 | PROHIBITED | 3 | 10+ | 1† | 5 | 3 |
| 39"+ | 1 | 4 (≥50% Tier 1) | 3 | 6 | PROHIBITED | 3 | DBH-equiv. | 1† | 5 | 4 |
† Summit ratio is 1:1 for all 12"+ trees regardless of size — but City Forester may deny removal of a healthy Landmark or Specimen tree entirely.
Dear Fellow Environmental Advocate of Montclair,
All it takes is five minutes of your time and one email to make a real difference for Montclair’s current and future climate resiliency.
A new report released in May 2026 by the World Meteorological Organization warns that global temperatures over the next five years are nearly certain to stay at or near record levels — with an 86 percent chance that at least one year between 2026 and 2030 will be the hottest ever recorded. The heat is not a distant projection; it is our near-term reality. And our shade trees are the single best local defense we have against it — they cool our streets, lower our energy bills, and protect the neighborhoods that need relief the most.
The Montclair Town Council has an updated Shade Tree Management ordinance (Chapter 324) on the agenda for the June 9th meeting. Getting this ordinance right is crucial to our climate resiliency goals — and now is the moment for the Council to hear from us.
Here's why this moment matters:
• The heat is here. Record or near-record heat is nearly certain through 2030. Shade is no longer a luxury — it is public health infrastructure.
• We can't plant our way out on public land alone. More than 90 percent of Montclair's land is privately owned, and our public planting capacity covers only a small fraction of the township. Our adopted goal of a 10 percent canopy increase by 2040 is simply unreachable without strong protections on private property. That is exactly what a strong Chapter 324 delivers.
• We've seen what weak rules cost us. In November 2023, NJDEP published a draft template for shade tree ordinances with more stringent replacement ratios. That draft went ignored by Montclair’s past leadership. That same month, 21 extraordinary oaks at Woodman Field were felled to make way for plastic grass. A stronger ordinance could have prevented that loss or required far more replacement trees. Instead, we now have a heat island where there was once a mature stand of native oaks.
The good news — real wins worth defending:
The updated ordinance includes meaningful improvements that I and other advocates have pushed for over nearly three years:
• Scaled replacement ratios tied to tree size
• Verified planting requirements
• A dedicated Tree Fund
• Species accountability on every permit
These are real wins, and they deserve support. But the ordinance still needs to be strengthened before final adoption.
The single most important thing you can do — in five minutes:
Write to the Council. Use the advocacy template below, customized with your name, street, and a personal tree story, and send it to all council members at the addresses provided. A short, personal email from a real resident carries real weight — and the Council needs to see that this matters to us now.
(If you're able, public comment at the June 9th meeting is also open to all residents — but please write in either way.)
Any questions, please reach out!
Anna
sustainablemontclair@gmail.com
——————————————————————
ADVOCACY TEMPLATE — Customize with your name, street, and personal tree story. Send to council members — addresses below.
Subject: Please Strengthen Chapter 324 — Montclair's Tree Ordinance
Dear Mayor Baskerville, Deputy Mayor Shin Andersen, and Council Members Birmingham, Harrison, Toler, and Williams,
I am writing as a Montclair resident to urge you to support and strengthen the revised Tree Removal and Replacement Ordinance (Chapter 324).
[Optional: Add one or two sentences about your personal connection to Montclair's trees — a tree on your street you love, a removal you witnessed, a neighborhood you walk through.]
Why this matters — especially now.
The World Meteorological Organization and the UK Met Office reported in May 2026 that there is a 91 percent likelihood global temperatures will temporarily exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in at least one of the next five years, and that record or near-record heat is nearly certain through 2030. These are no longer distant projections — they are our near-term climate. Shade trees are not decoration; they are public health infrastructure that cools our streets and shelters the most heat-vulnerable among us.
Crucially, more than 90 percent of Montclair's land is privately owned. Public planting alone cannot meet our canopy goals — which is why protections on private property are essential, not optional.
In 2023, 21 mature oak trees — some more than a century old — were cleared at Woodman Field to make way for artificial turf. They were removed legally, because Montclair's tree ordinance was too weak to stop it. The neighborhood surrounding the Aubrey Lewis Sports Complex is designated by NJDEP as an environmentally overburdened community already burdened by heat island conditions. Losing those oaks made it worse.
Montclair's own Sustainability and Resilience Master Plan Amendment commits us to increasing our tree canopy by 10 percent by 2040, from a 2016 baseline of 38.6 percent. Years of intense climate-driven storms, emerald ash borer, weak legislation, and weak enforcement have moved us in the wrong direction. The revised Chapter 324 is the tool that can turn this around — but only if it is strong enough to do the job.
What the revised ordinance gets right — and must be protected.
The updated ordinance contains meaningful improvements. Please protect these through final adoption:
— Replacement ratios now scale with tree size: 1, 2, 3, or 4 replacement trees depending on what was removed, replacing the indefensible 1:1 flat ratio that let a 100-year-old oak be legally replaced by a single ornamental cherry.
— Large removals must include Tier 1 large-canopy native species — the trees that actually provide shade, sequester carbon, and cool our streets.
— Species must be named on every permit, ending the blank-check "on Township list" language.
— Verified planting documentation is required for the first time.
— A dedicated Tree Fund is established to finance canopy restoration.
— Street trees are explicitly protected from unauthorized removal.
— A Tree Canopy Committee will report annually to Council on permit activity and canopy trends.
These are real improvements, years in the making. Please do not weaken them.
What still needs to be added before adoption.
The ordinance as drafted has meaningful gaps. I urge the Council to address the following before final adoption:
1. Add an Extraordinary Tree necessity standard (Section 324-5E(3)). No version of this draft requires a meaningful finding of necessity before a tree of 36 inches or larger can be removed. Highland Park, NJ has protected trees this size since 2020 with a clear necessity standard — they cannot be removed unless a committee deems it necessary. Montclair should meet the same standard. Please add: a preponderance of evidence standard; explicit necessity criteria including hazard status, irreversible decline documented by a qualified tree expert, or essential construction with no design alternative; and written Land Use Board findings before any extraordinary tree is permanently removed.
2. Restore the Certificate of Occupancy hold. An earlier attorney draft conditioned the Certificate of Occupancy on compliance with tree replacement requirements. That provision was removed from the final text. Without it, developers have no incentive to plant replacement trees before occupying a building. Please restore the CO hold before adoption.
3. Make two-year survival verification automatic. The current draft requires a two-year survival photo only "upon request" from the Township Arborist. Please make this automatic — or add a performance guaranty bond mechanism that makes compliance self-enforcing without requiring additional staff resources.
4. Add urban heat island impact to permit review criteria (Section 324-5E(2)). The ordinance's own Purpose section names mitigating the urban heat island effect as a core goal — but heat island impact does not appear among the criteria the administrative officer must consider when reviewing a permit. Please add it, with specific reference to NJDEP-designated overburdened and heat-vulnerable communities.
5. Add equity prioritization to the Tree Fund (Section 324-7). Tree Fund expenditures currently follow a proximity rule — money stays within 1,000 feet of wherever a removal occurred. This sends funds toward neighborhoods where tree work already happens rather than to heat-burdened communities that need canopy most. Please add secondary priority for neighborhoods with lower canopy coverage and elevated heat island conditions.
6. Add a two-year development bar for unpermitted removals. No version of this draft prevents someone who illegally removes trees from immediately filing a development application. A two-year bar on development applications following unpermitted tree removal is a strong deterrent that should be added before adoption.
7. Introduce the developer provisions this year. The ordinance as drafted does not address development — where Montclair's largest single-event canopy losses happen. The developer provisions, including differentiated replacement ratios for commercial properties and a Required Tree Density standard, have been deferred. I urge the Council to commit publicly to introducing these provisions by December 31, 2026. The new Tree Canopy Committee's mandate already includes advising on amendments to subdivision, site plan, and zoning ordinances — making this timeline achievable.
Montclair's tree canopy is part of what makes this town worth living in — and part of what will determine whether it remains livable as our climate changes. Please advance Chapter 324 as a strong foundation and commit to strengthening it before final adoption.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your street/neighborhood]
[Optional: one sentence about your personal connection to Montclair's trees]
Where to send:
MayorBaskerville@montclairnjusa.org
EBirmingham@montclairnjusa.org
Speak at the June 9th Council meeting — public comment is open to all residents. Montclair Municipal Building, 205 Claremont Avenue, Tuesday June 9th. AGENDA here.
Template prepared by Sustainable Montclair. sustainablemontclair@gmail.com | sustainablemontclair.org