Residents battle supervisors over tree removals
A meeting yielded little progress in the battle between Hereford Township supervisors and residents opposed to municipal rules requiring property owners to rid their land of trees determined by an arborist to be dangerous, or foot the bill for removal if they can’t take the trees down themselves.
On Tuesday night, May 3, about 50 residents attended the tense supervisors’ meeting, where representatives of a newly formed residents committee threatened the township with legal action if homeowners’ concerns over the policy aren’t addressed.
Under the policy — approved by supervisors in August — trees on private property marked by an arborist as dead, diseased or otherwise in danger of falling must be removed by residents within 30 days of receiving written notice from the township.
Residents who fail to deal with the trees may be subject to liens on their property to cover the cost of tree removal, as well as fines of up to $1,000 per day for every day that a rule violation remains, according to the ordinance.
A question-and-answer sheet from the township gives property owners a bit more leeway. It says they have six months to remove trees after being notified and may be given extensions based on individual circumstances.
Resident Matt Ferdock said 15 members of the 45-person committee already received estimates for removing marked trees, which added together totaled $341,000.
“That’s 15 (people) … if you do the math, we’re looking at millions of dollars to remove just the trees you’ve marked so far,” Ferdock said.
Supervisors have so far marked two of the township’s four quadrants, and officials said they are still in the process of preparing letters requesting the removals to residents in the first quadrant.
The firm hired by the township to mark trees is Arbor Essence LLC, Montgomery County, owned by David Paar.
Larry Iampietro said he consulted an arborist from Met-Ed, who told him none of the 18 marked trees on his property pose a present danger of falling. Several other residents also disputed the township arborist’s markings.
On behalf of the citizens’ committee, lawyer Craig Neely made a legal case against the tree removal policy. Neely also focused on what he said was a lack of present danger posed by the marked trees.
He said state laws do authorize townships to enact tree removal ordinances, but only if the trees unreasonably affect or interfere with public welfare or the ability to access roads.
Because the trees marked don’t necessarily pose an obvious and present danger, the township doesn’t have a right to enforce their removal under state law, according to Neely.
“Affects or interferes with: both present tense verbs,” Neely said, referring to the wording of the state code, “it doesn’t say could affect or could interfere with in the future.”
He said the ordinance as it stands could be misused by township officials for absurd reasons, like forcing homeowners to take down trees in areas where trespassers are known to regularly pass through their properties.
“I’m not accusing any member of the board of supervisors of ever entertaining something like that,” Neely noted. “But you’re not going to be here forever.”
He also said the policy is difficult for landowners to interpret and doesn’t clearly lay out uniform standards for when a tree should be taken down, instead relying on the opinions of a hired arborist — opinions which can change or vary between arborists.
“All they have is the arborist’s opinion,” Neely said. “Well (landowners) can get another arborist’s opinion. I don’t think that’s what (state laws) intended.”
No township official offered a rebuttal of Neely’s legal concerns.
Another concern left unaddressed Tuesday was a complaint by several residents: that the township did nothing to notify homeowners of their responsibility to remove trees.
“All I know is I see a guy out in front of my yard, marking X’s on my trees,” said John Allam, “if it wouldn’t have been for my neighbors telling me about this situation, I never would’ve known.”
Residents also questioned whether supervisors would maintain a previously stated compromise.
In comments to the Reading Eagle last month, supervisor John Membrino said officials had instructed the arborist to stop marking trees outside of the right-of-way, and any trees previously marked outside that area wouldn’t have to be removed.
Membrino declined to comment Tuesday on whether that compromise stands.
In addition, residents brought up concerns mentioned at past meetings about the effect that marking trees may have on homeowners’ liability in case of accidents involving marked trees, and how the markings could lower property value.
In comments last month, Membrino noted that the policy was put in place to deal with ash trees killed by the spread of the emerald ash borer.
At the time, he said the goal of the policy isn’t to saddle residents with exorbitant costs or liens, but to have homeowners come to the township with a tree removal plan that is affordable for them.
Despite the policy’s stated goal, no resident spoke in favor of it Tuesday.
Instead, the mood grew increasingly tense in the public comment session, with rumblings of “no answers” and “so frustrating” erupting every time supervisors declined to comment.
“Some of it is because we’ve been threatened with litigation,” Membrino said of the reason for the silence.
The residents group does plan to act against the policy and may pursue an injunction against the rules through local courts, or try to sue or recall township supervisors, resident Vic See said in comments last month to the Reading Eagle.
But legal action is only a last resort, See noted, if the township maintains its refusal to rewrite or repeal the tree removal policy.