Opposition taking root
Residents question tree removal policy that has them paying
Those passing through Hereford Township may notice thousands of roadside trees marked with a dark red X.
That X means township officials believe those trees are in danger of falling and must be disposed of, as mandated by a Hereford policy requiring residents to rid their properties of dangerous trees, or foot the bill for removal if they can’t take the trees down themselves.
The rule is facing fierce opposition from residents who say it’s unreasonable, illegal and possibly unconstitutional.
At a meeting early in April, about 25 attended to protest the policy, according to resident Vic See.
“Every resident that was there had the same opinion: I can’t afford to cut down 50 trees or more,” See said in comments to the Reading Eagle a few days after the meeting.
Under the policy — approved by supervisors in August 2021 — 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 of the markings from the township.
The firm hired by the township to mark trees is Arbor Essence LLC, Montgomery County, owned by David Paar.
Tree marking began in February and is expected to wrap up this summer.
About half of the township has been marked already, and notification letters were planned to start going out last week, officials said.
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.
“This is like the Revolutionary War and the Stamp Act,” See said. “The arborist went 60 feet onto my private property.”
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.
Expensive job
In comments to the Reading Eagle, Supervisor John Membrino said the point of the policy is to take down ash trees that have been damaged by the spread of the emerald ash borer, an invasive insect that harms and kills the trees.
“Every ash tree has to come down,” Membrino said. “That’s just a blanket statement. It doesn’t matter where it’s at because that tree is going to come down on its own, and it’s gonna hurt somebody.”
Membrino said the goal 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.
“We understand it’s going to be very expensive,” Membrino said. “We want them to budget for it. Maybe they can do a couple trees in the next few months.”
See said he asked multiple landscapers about tree removal services and received quotes of $750 to $2,000 per tree.
“Do I have $45,000 to cut my 45 trees down? No I don’t,” See said. “It’s crazy to levy this amount of cost on homeowners.”
See said the bills could run as high as $100,000 per resident because some residents have about 100 trees marked.
The policy was approved with little to no public discussion, with many residents only learning of it after red X’s appeared on their trees, See said.
In addition, See noted the policy of marking trees with red X’s could cause liability issues if a tree falling incident were to injure someone.
He said insurance companies would normally consider falling tree damage an act of God and cover the cost of damages, but if a marked tree falls, insurance companies could deny coverage and hold homeowners responsible for not removing the tree.
“The residents feel this has devalued our properties and put us all in a very high liability category because the township has deemed these trees dangerous,” See said.
Residents themselves could be injured trying to save money by cutting down larger trees themselves, See noted, especially those who have never taken down trees before.
See also questioned why supervisors felt a dangerous tree policy was such a necessity, considering no similar policy exists for state roads in Hereford.
“All the state roads have ash trees, yet the state has not implemented anything,” See said. “All the towns have ash trees. Isn’t it odd that we’re the only township doing this?”
See said residents have contacted state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie and state Sen. Bob Mensch about the policy. Both are Republicans serving portions of Berks.
Officials from Mackenzie’s office said Hereford’s tree removal policy is a local matter that doesn’t fall under the role of state government, and Mackenzie would not be taking action on the issue.
Battle brewing
See noted that he attended the township meeting with the goal of finding out if supervisors were willing to compromise or rewrite the ordinance.
He said supervisors flatly refused any change to the ordinance, and residents now feel they have no choice but to take legal action against the policy.
“They (the lawyers) think we have a trespassing, damage of property and even a constitutional case,” See said. “How much overreach can the township do against a private property owner?”
See said about 25 residents, including several lawyers, have formed a group to combat the policy and explore legal options.
At their first meeting, See said, residents discussed pursuing an injunction against the ordinance through local courts, or suing or impeaching township supervisors.
Hereford Solicitor Eugene Orlando noted the policy is permitted legally by the state’s second class township code, which informs and authorizes townships as to which actions can be taken.
He said the code allows supervisors to require, by ordinance, cutting down trees on private property if the trees interfere with public safety or access to roads.
“That’s been the law for decades,” Orlando said.
Orlando noted that he was not personally aware of any municipalities, inside or outside of Berks, that have enacted a similar tree removal ordinance.
Orlando also said he found it unlikely that challenging the rule’s constitutionality would hold up legally, but he has advised township officials not to comment further after residents announced they were suing the township at the April 5 meeting.
Membrino said supervisors have compromised with residents by recently instructing the arborist not to mark trees on private property and to only remain within the right of way.
Any trees previously marked outside of the right of way would not have to be taken down, Membrino said.
Trees within the right of way would still be residents’ financial responsibility, with a few rare exceptions in areas where the township owns the right of way.
Membrino said he believes the goal of residents who spoke at the meeting is not to take the trees down, but to let them fall naturally.
“And that’s OK as long as my wife and kids aren’t driving down the road when that dead tree decides to fall naturally,” Membrino said.
See said that without any change to the ordinance — which permits mandating removal of trees that affect or interfere with, or pose any danger to the public — it’s unclear whether the supervisors’ promise not to mandate removal of trees outside of the right of way will hold.