The Shade TreeReading the 2026 Ordinance Drafts
A side-by-side comparison of the two 2026 drafts of Chapter 324 (Trees) — the Environmental Commission’s May working version and the Council’s June 9 introduced ordinance — followed by Sustainable Montclair’s recommended amendments and additional ideas for consideration.
Part I · What June 9 Removes
The June 9 introduced ordinance is, in the main, the Environmental Commission’s May 28 working version with provisions taken out. Its purpose clause, definitions, permit-application contents, fee schedule, Tree Fund, emergency exceptions, penalties, and contractor registration are carried over almost verbatim. What follows is what the introduced version drops or weakens between the May 28 working version and the June 9 introduced ordinance. These are the most consequential losses; the red column shows what the June 9 text does instead.
| Provision | What the May 28 version said | June 9, 2026 (introduced) | Net effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-year development moratorium after illegal removal | § 324-4.A(5): No Development application may be filed for a 2-year period on a property where tree removal occurred without a required permit. The two years run from the date removal occurred. | Removed entirely. | Eliminates the strongest deterrent against cut-first-then-develop. |
| Land Use Board as decision-maker for Extraordinary Trees | § 324-5.E(1): For Development Applications and for any Extraordinary Tree, the relevant Land Use Board reviews and serves as administrative officer. | Reverted to staff: Township Arborist / DCS is administrative officer; Extraordinary Trees no longer routed to the LUB. | Moves high-value-tree decisions from a public board to staff discretion. |
| Mandatory LUB approval for Extraordinary Trees | § 324-5.E(3)(a): Removal of any Extraordinary Tree requires prior Land Use Board approval (unless Hazard or Dead). | Removed. | Removes the public-hearing gate for the most significant trees. |
| Heightened evidentiary standard for Extraordinary Trees | § 324-5.E(3)(b): LUB must find, by a preponderance of evidence, that the tree is a Hazard, is Dead (TRAQ-documented), or that removal is essential to a permitted structure with no reasonable alternative, as certified by the Township Engineer; written findings required on each criterion. | Replaced with a weaker staff test: removal merely “necessary.” No preponderance standard, no written findings, no Township Engineer certification. | Lowers the burden of proof to remove an Extraordinary Tree. |
| Statutory appeal route (Zoning Board) | § 324-5.F: Appeals filed with the Zoning Board of Adjustment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-72. | Replaced: appeals filed with the Township Manager. | Swaps a statutory land-use appeal for internal administrative review. |
| Development Application tree provisions (entire § 324-5.I) | § 324-5.I(1)–(3): Tree removal in development must be minimized to the greatest extent practicable; applicant must show alternatives considered; priority to preserving mature / Significant / Extraordinary trees; LUB may require design modifications or enhanced mitigation where removal is excessive. | Removed entirely. | Removes the framework governing developer clear-cutting. |
| Canopy mitigation formula for land disturbance | § 324-5.I(4): For significant land disturbance, clearing, or demolition, the LUB may require added planting or a Tree Fund contribution; guideline of ~1 tree per 3,000 sq ft disturbed, or 15 trees per acre, or an equivalent fee. | Removed entirely. | Removes the quantitative canopy-offset standard for development. |
Part II · What June 9 Changes
The introduced ordinance adds very little. It is, in the main, the Environmental Commission’s May 28 text with provisions removed. The few genuine changes — none of which add new substantive protection — are shown below; the blue column shows the June 9 text.
| Change in June 9 | What June 9 says | May 28, 2026 EC working version | Net effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Trees lose their permitting exemption | § 324-4.A(2) and the Hazard Tree definition: June 9 drops the “Hazard Trees are exempt from removal permitting requirements” sentence, so Hazard Trees now require a § 324-5C report submission before removal. | The 5/28/26 EC version’s Hazard Tree definition expressly stated that Hazard Trees are exempt from permitting. | Adds a documentation step for hazard removals the prior versions did not require. |
| Significant-tree replacement reworded as “2 Tier 1 trees” | Replacement schedule, 24–35″ (Significant) row: “3 trees; at least 2 Tier 1 trees.” | The 5/28/26 EC version read “3 trees; at least 50% Tier 1.” | A count replaces the percentage; for 3 trees the practical effect is essentially the same. |
| Appeals routed to the Township Manager (vs. the EC’s Zoning Board) | § 324-5.F: appeals of the administrative officer’s decision are filed with the Township Manager. | The 5/28/26 EC version routed appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-72. | Replaces a statutory land-use appeal with internal administrative review. |
Part III · Our Asks — Closing the Gaps in the June 9 Draft
The comparison above shows what the introduced ordinance leaves out. The table below sets out the specific amendments Sustainable Montclair urges the Council and Environmental Commission to adopt — each paired with the gap it closes in the June 9 draft and, where one exists, the New Jersey municipality whose ordinance already does it. Items marked Montclair would lead have no confirmed NJ precedent in the comparison towns and represent an opportunity for the Township to set the standard.
Sourcing note: the precedents below were checked against primary ordinance text (eCode360 / municipal records) in June 2026. Two asks have been re-marked because a specific match could not be confirmed — the cumulative-removal multiplier and the differentiated commercial ratio — and their cells state exactly what was and was not verified.
| Our ask | What it does & the gap it closes in the June 9 draft | NJ precedent |
|---|---|---|
| Certificate of Occupancy hold | Developers cannot occupy a building until replacement trees are verified as planted. The June 9 draft holds the building permit but not the Certificate of Occupancy — restoring the CO hold closes the gap. | Westfield § 29A (Code Enforcement Officer withholds the certificate of occupancy until replacement-tree requirements are met — confirmed). |
| Necessity standard for big-tree removals | Before any Significant (24–35″) or Extraordinary (36″+) tree is removed for construction, require a preponderance of evidence that removal is truly essential, independently verified — not on a single contractor’s word. A qualified professional must show the construction cannot occur anywhere but where the tree stands and no feasible design alternative exists. Explicit criteria: hazard status, irreversible decline documented by a TRAQ-qualified Licensed Tree Expert, or essential construction with no design alternative. The Tree Canopy Committee reviews and may require an independent second opinion at the applicant’s expense. Written Land Use Board findings required. | Verona, Ch. 493 (Council designates extraordinary trees; Planning Board review under § 493-24 for removal of more than two mature trees/year); Highland Park, Ch. 388 (extraordinary-tree removal requires STAC/DPW recommendation and Borough Council approval). |
| Verify species and size at planting, then survival | At planting, require online submission of the nursery receipt listing species and caliper, plus a photo — so the tree in the ground matches what the permit promised, not merely that something survived. The Tree Canopy Committee reviews it; with no required site visits, this receipt-and-photo check is the enforcement. Then automatic two-year survival verification, or a performance-bond equivalent — not a photo only “upon request.” | Verona (1-yr performance bond, released on healthy-tree certification; plus 2-yr replacement duty); Westfield, § 29A ($500/tree cash bond held 2 yrs); Glen Ridge, Ord. 1811 ($100/tree escrow, 2-yr, or a 2-yr guarantee in lieu). All confirmed. |
| Urban heat island in permit review | Permit review must weigh whether a removal worsens heat-island conditions, especially in NJDEP-designated overburdened communities. | No confirmed NJ precedent — Montclair would lead. |
| Tree Fund equity prioritization | Fee-in-lieu money directed to the lowest-canopy, highest-heat neighborhoods — not just within 1,000 feet of the removal. | No confirmed NJ precedent — Montclair would lead. |
| 24-month aggregation of removals (the key fix) | Count all removals on a property over a rolling two-year period — by tax lot, regardless of ownership change — toward every threshold, fee, and ratio. Without it, the limits reset with each permit and can be dodged by spacing removals out. Addresses the gap, raised on 6/10, that neither draft handles multiple trees taken from the same property over time. | No confirmed NJ precedent — Montclair would lead. |
| Cumulative-removal multiplier | Beyond two trees in 24 months, replacement obligations escalate by count: 1.5× for the 3rd–5th tree, 2× for the 6th and beyond, with all trees past the fifth required to be Tier 1 natives. Layers escalation by number on top of the existing escalation by size. | Escalation-by-count not confirmed in a NJ comparison town (the closest model located is Hanover Township § 166-131, which escalates ratios after the first 10 trees removed per property). Several towns escalate replacement by tree size. |
| Enhanced review for large standalone removals | A substantive second look for the biggest non-development removals, routed to the Tree Canopy Committee the ordinance already creates — not a Land Use Board, which lacks jurisdiction when no development is pending. | Verona, § 493-24 (Zoning Official site visit + Planning Board hearing for removal of more than two trees); Highland Park, Ch. 388 (heightened review for large/extraordinary trees). Confirmed. |
| Pre-clearing (anti-circumvention) clause | Trees cleared in anticipation of development count toward the replacement and canopy obligations of any development application filed on the property within 24 months — closing the loophole of stripping a lot before the Board ever sees it. | No confirmed NJ precedent — Montclair would lead. |
| Climate-qualified decision-maker | When the Township Arborist is unavailable, route permit review to the Director of Sustainability — not Community Services — given the ordinance’s climate and ecological goals. If a non-arborist decides, require continuing education in urban forestry and canopy management. | Closes a gap in § 324-5E: no knowledge standard on the decision-maker. |
| Tier 1 floor for large dead/hazard tree replacements | Dead or hazard trees 24″+ must be replaced with at least one Tier 1 species — so a 36″ oak lost to drought or emerald ash borer isn’t replaced by a single ornamental. Climate stress is a growing driver of big-tree death; the replacement shouldn’t shrink the canopy. | Closes a gap in the § 324-6B schedule (flat 1:1, no species floor). |
| Climate-resilient species list | The Township Tree Replacement Species List should prefer species that tolerate projected regional conditions — more heat, drought, and intense storms — so today’s replacements survive tomorrow’s climate. Best handled with the Director of Sustainability and the Tree Canopy Committee. | Species-list design, alongside § 324-2. |
| Canopy baseline & tracking in the annual report | The annual report should estimate net canopy change using available GIS or remote-sensing data — or recommend how to fund it — with a formal canopy-monitoring program by 2028. Without measurement, the Master Plan’s 10% canopy goal has no enforcement path. | Sharpens § 324-11: the annual report covers permit activity, fees, and general “canopy trends,” but sets no measured canopy baseline or monitoring method. |
| Differentiated commercial / developer ratios | Higher requirements for commercial and non-owner-occupied properties, where trees are removed for profit rather than personal necessity. | Highland Park applies a 2:1 mitigation rate for non-compliant removals (§ 388-8); a commercial/non-owner-occupied multiplier specifically was not confirmed. West Caldwell (Ord. 1882) imposes higher development-context requirements. |
| Required Tree Density standard | Development must meet a minimum canopy density — not merely replace removed trees on a count basis. | West Caldwell, Ord. 1882 § 24 (development may remove no more than 60% of existing canopy; 40% must be preserved — confirmed). |
| Two-year development bar after tree removal | No development application may be filed for two years after any tree removal on a property (excluding dead and hazard trees) — so a lot cannot be cleared and then brought to the Board with the trees already gone. | No confirmed NJ precedent in comparison towns. |
Part IV · Additional Ideas for Consideration
Beyond the targeted amendments above, the following provisions are worth considering as the ordinance is revised. They are not tied to a specific gap in the June 9 draft, but each would strengthen Montclair’s tree protection, enforcement, or transparency, and several reflect approaches used elsewhere. They are offered as options for the Council and Environmental Commission to weigh.
| Idea | What it would do | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Numeric caps on removals | Cap construction-driven removals without a variance — e.g., no more than two average trees in 12 months (four in five years) and one significant tree in 12 months (two in five years). | Adds a bright-line backstop to discretionary review, so the number of trees lost on any property is bounded, not just case-by-case. |
| Hard canopy-retention floor for development | Require developed lots to preserve a set share of healthy, non-obstructing canopy — for example, 50% on already-developed lots and 70% on undeveloped lots. | Sets a measurable preservation minimum for development sites rather than relying on replacement counts after the fact. |
| Construction-phase tree protection | Require snow fencing or barriers at the dripline of trees to be preserved; prohibit equipment, chemicals, or soil deposits in the root zone; set a fueling/washdown setback; limit grade changes in the root zone; and replace any preserved tree lost to construction at 3×. | Protects the trees a plan promises to keep — the most common point where “preserved” trees quietly die during build-out. |
| Tree root-barrier requirement near pavement | Require a root barrier (roughly 12″ deep × 6 ft) for replacement trees planted within about 6 feet of sidewalks, driveways, or curbs (Mt. Laurel model). | Prevents the sidewalk-heave conflicts that later become the Township’s justification for removing the very trees it planted. |
| Notice of Tree Removal posted on site | Require the permit holder to post a visible Notice of Tree Removal on the property from permit issuance through five days after removal. | Gives neighbors real-time, on-the-ground transparency and a window to raise concerns before trees come down. |
| Expanded noticing for development applications | For development-related removals, require certified-mail or hand-delivery notice to all owners within ~200 feet, at least 10 days before the Land Use Board hearing. | Broadens who hears about significant removals beyond immediately abutting owners. |
| Recognize clusters of trees | Define and flag clusters of three or more trees on plans as providing greater-than-the-sum ecosystem value. | Captures the canopy, habitat, and stormwater value of grouped trees that a tree-by-tree count misses. |
| Active enforcement / replacement follow-up | Build in a reminder-and-inspection workflow (e.g., 60-day and 12-month reminder letters with tiered verification by tree class) to confirm replacements are actually planted and surviving. | Turns replacement from a paper promise into a tracked obligation — closing the enforcement gap left by an annual report alone. |
| Concrete contractor insurance minimums | Specify minimum coverage for registered tree contractors — e.g., $2M property/bodily-injury per incident, $300K auto, workers’ comp, and 30-day cancellation notice. | Replaces a vague “maintain required insurance” with enforceable floors that protect residents and the Township. |
| Positive incentives & replacement escrow | Consider incentives for planting beyond the minimum (e.g., a modest tax credit or recognition) and a refundable escrow or bond to guarantee replacement survival (engineering-escrow model). | Rewards stewardship and gives the survival requirement financial teeth, rather than relying solely on penalties. |
| Independent review of the annual report | Before the annual tree report is submitted to Council, have it reviewed by a standing advisory body with environmental expertise (such as the Environmental Commission) and published publicly. | Adds an expert, public-record checkpoint to the canopy and permit data — improving transparency and year-over-year accountability rather than a single internal submission. |
The Ask, in Brief
The June 9 introduced ordinance is, in the main, a subtraction from the Environmental Commission’s May 28 working version: it strips out the development-related provisions — the Land Use Board’s mandatory role and heightened evidentiary standard for Extraordinary Trees, the statutory Zoning Board appeal route, the entire development-application section (§ 324-5.I), the canopy-mitigation planting formula, and the two-year post-violation development moratorium — and routes nearly all of these decisions back to discretionary staff review.
Sustainable Montclair respectfully urges the Council and the Environmental Commission to restore that lost protection and adopt the amendments in Part III before final adoption. Most are already settled law in neighboring New Jersey towns; the remainder are modest, well-scoped fixes that would let Montclair lead. The single most important is the 24-month aggregation of removals: without it, every threshold and ratio in the ordinance can be defeated simply by spacing removals out over time.
Prepared for advocacy reference. Section and § citations refer to the numbering used in each source document.