Public Works Committee
Regular MeetingNorthbrook, IL · December 13, 2012
Minutes
Approved
MINUTES OF AN
EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
December 13, 2012
Chairman Heller called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of the Village Hall at 7:33 PM. On roll
call, present were: Trustees Buehler, Israel and Chairman Heller; also present: Director of Development
and Planning Services T. Poupard, Assistant Director of Building and Development N. Desario, Tree
Preservation Officer M. Cacioppo, Mike Rude, Jamie Trapp , Charles Price, Debbie Ramsay, Larry Katz,
Jeff Ramsay(by phone) and Village Clerk D Ford.
Call to Order
Hear from the Audience
No Response
Review of Appeal – Issuance of Tree Removal Permit for 8 Hickory
Chairman Heller noted for the record this is an emergency meeting in response to an appeal to the
issuance of tree removal permits as it relates to new construction. He clarified the purpose of the
meeting is not to amend the tree ordinance, but to hear the issues as they relate to the appeal. In
addition, Trustee Heller stated the appeal process is not for Director of Community and Planning
Services to state why he has given the permit, but for those in opposition to make their case as to why
they think the issuance of the permit was improper. They need to state where Director Poupard or his
staff has not comported with the Village Tree Ordinance.
Charles Price, 7 Hickory Lane, stated he moved into the neighbor 32 years ago when there were only
two, homes and today there are nine. Their street, which is not a Village street, has only been paved
once in 32 years and the residents pay to have it plowed in the winter. Through time the small homes
were torn down to build big ones. The tree ordinance has not always been in place; however Mr. Price
stated the neighbors have tried to maintain vegetation. He stated he knew the house in dispute was
sold, and on Sunday he received a letter from the new owners asking them to sign on the removal of the
trees. Mr. Price stated he wasn’t sure if he should have, but did raise the question of the tree ordinance.
Mr. Price stated he and the neighbors had a social gathering with the new potential neighbors. Then he
contacted the Village to see if the right thing was being done. They then contacted the Village to file an
appeal. That brings us here today.
Mr. Price noted he had more concerns when he saw the plans and saw 72% of the trees were being
removed. He asked if it made sense to clear the lot of the trees. Mr. Price questioned the preservation
and protection ordinance. He noted his experience with trees in the past and questioned if the trees in
question have been reviewed by the Village arborist or an independent individual? Mr. Price noted
those are the general objections.
Jeff Ramsay, via telephone, stated he wanted to address these trees. In general, the permit as it stands,
wants to remove trees. Mr. Price pointed out that the tree ordinance states the trees removed have to
be replaced; however he questioned them being replaced by smaller trees. You can’t replace them with
as large of trees, so why doesn’t the Village feel it is more important to preserve those in place. He
questioned having to remove a tree for the purpose of putting in a swimming pool.
Public Works Committee Meeting December 13, 2012
Mr. Ramsay (via phone) stated he feels the Village could have handled the situation better. He pointed
out there is nothing in the ordinance that requires notification to the neighbors. Mr. Ramsay stated he
felt people need to be better educated on the removal of tree. The Village can’t issue these permits in a
vacuum. Mr. Ramsay questioned how you know when a permit is valid. In this case they are removing
50 plus trees and replacing with 44 trees. Mr. Ramsay stated there are some very big, important trees
that could be protected. Five of the eight in question are landmark trees; however they have been
identified as unhealthy trees. Mr. Ramsay reiterated what Mr. Price stated earlier, that sometimes trees
determined to be unhealthy can survive. At the very least, there should be a true replacement plan in
place. Mr. Ramsay stated he did not like the process; there should be a replacement plan in place
before any of the trees are torn down. Mr. Ramsay acknowledged you lose trees when you build, I did
it, but you should not let heritage and landmark trees go unless there is no other way.
Chairman Heller stated he understood they are not happy with there not being a notification provision
in the present tree ordinance, but he questioned where they feel the Village was improper in issuing the
permit.
In response, Mr. Ramsay stated the issue is with the permitting the removal of heritage and landmark
trees when they are not located in the buildable area of the home. They are out of the zone. The trees
in question are 75+ years old and deserve to remain in place. The decision should not be subjective in
nature. There is a need to use an arborist’s objectivity.
Mr. Price stated he is appealing the fact that the Village was arbitrary and capricious. He stated the
purpose of the tree ordinance is to preserve trees. The trees were here longer than us. Mr. Price stated
that when he built his home he hired a private arborist. The arborist told him several trees where touch
and go. He stated he has seen the trees go through phases of good and bad, but they are still thriving.
Mr. Price mentioned how he treated an Oak that he was told would not make it, and it did. Mr. Price
then stated how the removal of trees and vegetation on the property will affect stormwater detention
in the neighborhood. He described how the trees and vegetation soak up all of the water. He
questioned how taking down the trees will affect their properties as it relates to flooding. It will
certainly enhance the probability that we will flood more. Mr. Price stated he hoped some
accommodation can be made to save some of these trees, in the nature and spirit of the tree ordinance.
Larry Katz, 3 Hickory Lane, asked Tree Arborist Mark Cacioppo if .he knows what the cost is to replace
100 plus trees. In response, Mr. Cacioppo gave Mr. Katz approximate costs. They then discussed how
this related to the tree ordinance.
Debbie Ramsay, 6 Hickory Lane, noted reiterated from the tree ordinance how any heritage trees that
are removed can only be done with the approval of the Board. Trustee Buehler verified no heritage
trees were being cut down. Ms. Ramsay then addressed the replacement provision, noting she
questioned the sequence of the plan. Mr. Cacioppo explained how a fee is provided.
Trustee Heller read the tree ordinance out loud, and noted the procedure has been followed. Assistant
Director of Development and Planning Services Nick Desario explained the process they follow when a
development is involved.
Gail Price 7 Hickory Lane, commented how they are all delighted in welcoming their new neighbors and
that they all need to get past this issue. Ms. Price stated it would be wonderful if Mike and Debbie could
hear the concerns of the neighbors and how beneficial some flexibility would be.
Chairman Heller questioned if there are any written association agreements or restrictions for the lots
on Hickory Lane? Mr. Trapp stated he has the right of way that allows all others to come into the
2
Public Works Committee Meeting December 13, 2012
neighborhood. The attendees then reviewed the layout of the Hickory Lane neighborhood. Mr. Price
stated the only agreement in place is for snow removal.
Mr. Katz stated the decision can’t just be based on law. He stated this is a different area and asked that
that it is taken into consideration. Trustee Heller noted it has been stated how others have been making
subjective decisions.
Mr. Trapp asked why these trees can’t be saved. He stated the ordinance gives the manager a lot of
discretion. It seems the process is very arbitrary. We should save the trees. At the end of day, we all
agree on preserving the trees.
Trustee Buehler explained to those in attendance how and why the tree ordinance was drafted the way
it was. Trustee Buehler gave the history of the tree ordinance and why the Board created it.
Mr. Ramsay reiterated how the tree canopy helps with the issue of water. He noted how a number of
the other trees in the area in question will eventually be lost to Emerald Ash Borer and Dutch elm
disease. He stated he understands the removing of ash and elm trees, but not the others.
Mr. Price clarified the procedure stating this committee will hear both sides and then make a
recommendation to the full Board. Trustee Buehler stated that if they don’t like the decision, they can
again appeal the decision to the full Board of Trustees
Mr. Trapp questioned if there was a moratorium until a decision is granted. Trustee Heller confirmed
and noted there is not another Board meeting scheduled until January 8th.
Director Poupard went through a PowerPoint presentation as provided in the packet. He gave an
overview of the regulations to familiarize the group with the terminology. He stated in the required
yards, you cannot remove Heritage or Landmark Trees unless Board approval is granted. In the
buildable area of a lot, you can remove Landmark trees in compliance with a replacement formula, but
the Heritage Trees remain protected unless approved by the Board. He explained the criteria for
determining what constitutes a landmark tree – species, size and health. Director Poupard noted that in
this case, both Mark Cacioppo and the Village Arborist Terry Cichocki went out to the site and reviewed
the trees and concurred on the assessment. Mr. Cacioppo explained the evaluation is based on the
condition of the tree.
Director Poupard continued showing the location of the trees in question. He reviewed which trees are
permitted to be removed; which require Board approval and the trees causing the issue in the present
situation. Mr. Cacioppo stated he looked at the trees. The majority were ash, buckthorn, etc. Any of
the trees that could have been landmark or heritage were looked at more closely. He reviewed the
trees indicated on the PowerPoint, their size, etc. He then explained how they were put into heritage
classification.
Ms. Ramsay questioned a method to test the trees. Mr. Cacioppo explained it is called a resistograph.
He stated the process is done with a small drill into the wood to determine if the wood is soft or hard.
Mr. Trapp questioned if it mattered what time of year you look at the trees. They discussed this and the
trees marked to be removed.
Director Poupard stated we are bound by the ordinance – both ways. We try to apply it uniformly, and
be consistent. We try to be fair. In this case Mr. Cacioppo brought in a second staff person to get her
opinion on the trees and she agreed with Mark’s assessment. Director Poupard acknowledged the
neighbors frustration with the lack of notification, but it is not required by code.
3
Public Works Committee Meeting December 13, 2012
Trustee Buehler then pointed out the other side of the notification issue. He explained how if he was
applying to take down a tree in his yard, would there be a need to require notification?
Trustee Israel questioned if the tree ordinance needs revision or revisiting. Trustee Heller reiterated
that this was not the purpose of this meeting.
Mr. Rude noted a conversation he had with Mr. Ramsay. He addressed one of the trees, and that they
have to trim half one of the trees, to build the house. He stated he will hold off, and try to just trim this
tree in question, but noted his concern with being able to remove the tree in the future if needed. Mr.
Rude pointed out how trees 404 and 405 are in the middle of his proposed driveway. To avoid removing
these trees he would have to move the driveway down towards Mr. Price’s driveway. This would put
three driveways in a small area. Mr. Rude pointed out in the photos provided that if you look at our lot
after this will not look any less dense with lot 5 or 1. He stated he appreciates other opinions, but when
looked in comparison to the others, he does not feel it will look much different than some of the other
lots.
Trustee Israel questioned if Mr. Rude intended on doing any replanting? In response, Mr. Rude stated
yes.
Mr. Trapp stated he felt there is an issue with the use of definition “unhealthy.” It is arbitrary. He
stated what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. He stated you start with an intention,
and you acquire an arborist to get what the builder is looking to accomplish. No standard can be
applied here. The ordinance is bad on its face.
Chairman Heller asked Mr. Cacioppo if the standards were used here. In response, Mr. Cacioppo stated
yes and he explained what was looked at to determine that standard. CharimanHeller questioned if the
process was subjective more than arbitrary and Mr. Cacioppo stated yes.
Mr. Trapp questioned if a report was written? He questioned if another arborist was called in could
there be a difference of opinion. Mr. Trapp stated he felt the Village has an agenda. Trustee Israel
stated the Village does not have an agenda. Mr. Trapp replied maybe not the Village.
Assistant Desario reviewed the trees in question and noted in reality we are talking about 3 red oaks and
a sugar maple. Trustee Heller noted an owner can do whatever they want with a tree that is not a
landmark or heritage tree.
Mr. Ramsay questioned why the Rude’s could not move their proposed driveway to save the two trees
located there. Ms. Price stated the real issue is with the volume of trees being removed. Trustee Heller
pointed out there is no say in that if it does not affect a heritage or landmark tree. Trustee Heller invited
the neighbors to attend the Board meeting to discuss further, however he stated he did not think there
would be an agreement.
Mr. Price once again addressed the location of the new driveway. He stated there is such little traffic,
and there is really no reason to be concerned with the driveways being closer together. Trustee Israel
questioned if Mr. Rude would allow his architect to revisit those two particular trees. Mr. Rude
explained he already discussed this with his architect and the problem with doing this is it would add
another $20,000 – $30,000 to the cost.
Trustee Israel provided Mr. Rude with an option, that he thought would be beneficial to both parties.
Trustee Israel stated that the Village staff had done due process in authorizing the permit and that Mr.
Rude would not be obligated to do such a thing and permit would stand.
Trustee Buehler pointed out how interesting it is that since this ordinance was put in place this would be
the first time the homeowner has not made the appeal. He stated that in looking at what is proposed to
4
Public Works Committee Meeting December 13, 2012
be taken down; the ordinance allows him to do it, but on a personal note he regrets losing any
significant tree. He stated this is a personal opinion. In saying that, there staff has given the permit
properly. We have heard your appeal, but staff followed code. He stated he is not an arborist, but that
is why we have them on staff. Trustee Buehler acknowledged that he may look at it differently if it were
his house, but feels staff has acted properly.
ChairmanHeller stated he agreed with his fellow Trustees. The purpose of the appeal process it to
determine if staff issued the permit properly and I feel they have. The owner is not doing anything
against the ordinance. We may have other options to look at in the future, ways in which to amend the
ordinance, but that is not the purpose of this meeting. We need to comply with the ordinance. Staff
needs to follow with their expertise. Trustee Heller stated the Committee will bring their
recommendation to the full Board on January 8, 2013.
Trustee Buehler moved, seconded by Trustee Israel, to deny the appeal of residence, on the tree permit
for 8 Hickory. On voice vote, all were in favor.
Trustee Israel made a motion, seconded by Trustee Buehler, that the meeting be adjourned. On voice
vote the motion was approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Debbie Ford
Village Clerk
5
Agenda
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
EMERGENCY MEETING
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE
DECEMBER 13, 2012, 7:30 P.M., TERRACE ROOM
The Public Works Committee of the Village of Northbrook Board of Trustees will hold an emergency
meeting on Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 7:30 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. REVIEW OF APPEAL – ISSUANCE OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 8 HICKORY LANE
4. ADJOURN
Todd Heller, Chair
Public Works Committee
Members: Trustee Buehler
Trustee Israel
Village of Northbrook
Cook County, Illinois
December 12, 2012
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.
DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING SERVICES
TO: RICHARD A. NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: THOMAS POUPARD, DIRECTOR OF DPS
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2012
SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REVIEW
APPEAL OF AN APPROVED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – 8 HICKORY LANE
The Public Works Committee of the Board of Trustees will hold a meeting on Thursday, December 13,
2012 to discuss a series of appeals filed by neighbors along Hickory Lane concerning permitted tree
removal activity involving 8 Hickory Lane.
The neighbors are concerned that too many trees are being removed as part of the approved tree
removal permit for the planned construction of a new home on 8 Hickory Lane.
Attached are a series of documents to help aid the Committee in reviewing this matter, including:
The plan depicting the trees to be removed and retained.
The appeals filed by the four neighbors.
A copy of the Village’s tree ordinance from the Municipal Code.
Aerial photographs of the Hickory Lane.
Overview of the permitted tree removal activity and some questions and answers presented to
the neighbors and owner of 8 Hickory Lane on December 11.
One of the neighbors, Mr. Ramsay, has asked that he be able to join the discussion via speaker phone.
We indicated we would make that accommodation so this review can occur in a timely fashion.
All tree removal activity has stopped pending the outcome of this appeal. The demolition of the existing
home will be taking place this week, however that work does not involve any trees being removed and
proper tree protection fencing is in place.
Village staff will be attending Thursday night’s meeting to make a brief presentation and to answer
questions.
Page 1
TREE REMOVAL LIST: EXISTING CONDITIONS / DEMOLITION PLAN
Prepared by CP. 2
LOU Leggett - Certified Arbonst .17. 7 EP. 5 Type East Rim MH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Phone. (8171.1-7081 T Nee t Nag Ned Nt 19991.4283
PT 27 !HE FAST VP OF THE WEST 415 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 27 IN COUNT,CLERKS
I, 19988.3369 Et 31534.9690 DIVISION IN THE SOUTHWEST gal. OF SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12
E 3036, ea, EAST, OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR
INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER THE NORTH 25 FEET THEREOF, IN THE
VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS NORTH
LANE
HICKOR7-7- Scni12,
Benchmark
Souroe Benchmark
Elle015 Pep:lament Ot Transportation
ItIonnment NBC 75
°Gabon tNest Side of Intersection Olt hoe Rd.
and Grant RN.
Elevatton 66.2 72 NOVO Jg
Site Benchma.
CP .2 (see swam.)
Description Cross Net. On MH Rim
PT. 27 Elevation: fiatt 62 NGVD 29
AR...43,926 SF
•
:
h' I
X X ftg=:
X PROPOSED
7 "AVO'R"
PT 27 2._ MR0
TOM, IMPERVIOUS=
PT 27
DRIVRY, 0
Ntrat thIPERU011at Na09 S.F.
FRIOEFFEF VF'
' RFEH;fta7t1
' ttEA
SERVICE NOTE:
The onntractor shall he responsible for locating the water and sanitary service Imes a.
determining Ne suitability of each for re-use for the proposed residence. It an extating line is
determined to be in satisfactory condition for turner USN it shall be cut es shown on Nee, plans
EPOIN tor Ne installation of a new le-box or cleanout, as well es En additional extenslon of the
line to the residence. Should elther line be deemed unusable, the entire service line shall be
removed up to the existing mein, a. a completely now cenneceon shell he made. If new main
connections are required. the roadway pavement will need to he saw-cut and removed for tho
V. f II pth f th p t da tst. gp t h b pl d .
In order to determine re-use of the exIsting sanitary service the existing service shall be
televised. A colorized DVD tape a. inspection report must be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review. Cert.:at., from a Ncensed Plumber must also be provided alOng vjth
SSubdrvrx and the DVD indicating that re-use of thc sordoe Itne Is acceptable. JR. exist. service line is
found to be in n deteriorated conditlon, (i.e. sags present. evidence of infInwanlittration, pipe
material is V.C.P. or root intrusion is evldent at the joints) total replacement will be required
EX/STING PROPOSED DRIVEWAY NOTE:
The pruposed peimeeble never drIvewey shall ourNiel at lite tollewing PlelerielS4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS LLI
Manhole
Peoln
• PAVERS - Interlocking or enlarged permeable joint purer with a minimum thickness of
3-1,t3 Inches and spacing (yak!) between 1/4 to 1 /2 inch.
LLICso
O Clean Out • AGGREGATE SETTING BED t 2tincit ASTM Ne. 8 aggregate
• AGGREGATE BASE - Otinch ASTM No. 57 aggregate HICKOkY
Sanitary Sower --,.— • AGGREGATE SUB-BASE -18-inch ASTIM No. 2 aggregate
Water Mein • HILLING BHMEEN PAVERS - AASTIA No. 8 aggregate
Valve Vault Goole...brio will be required on Me bottom and sides of the aggregate sub-base and base.
Valve Box The perimeter surrounding the permeable pavers shall be supperted wt. a steel edge
= dE
B-Bux
Clean 0,
55 restraint The paver installation must support H-20 loadings.
1.4-1 = E
Light Pole
Jagae ;
PIPe Bollard
DETENTION REQUIREMENT:
F
Gas Molar =2
Overhead OUR, t 13 cu-flt Refer to Sloymwater Manage!. Rem
REQUIRED =0.051 acre-ft (2.2,
C
Electric Meter
THE REQUIRED DETENTION SHALL BE COMPENSATED BY THE INSTALLATION OF A 83
Guy Wire PERMEAB, PAVER ORNEWAR.
Utility Pole
Mailbox Regal. Depth ol Stone (D) .23.25 Inches
Void Space credit 33 3,
Pavement Elevation Area of DrIveway .3,477Sqta
Sidewalk Elevation
Orount Elevation cuR 3,477 sq-a x x .33333
Contour Line D 1.05 ft= 23.25 inches 23.25 inchecohstone shall be Ht.. trout.. Re entire driveway
Deciduous Tree
Coniferous Tree
Brushline
Overtlow
StIt Fence
TABLE OF CONTENTS
...SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
K"C;If=4 SHEET 3
....SIDE YARD CROSS-SECTIONS
GENERAL NOTES B. STANDARD DETAILS
EXPIRES 1 1-30-1
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT ADVERSELY JAC
IMPACT THE SUBJECT:HOPEI, THE SURROUND/NG
Date. 08.23/2012
RNII=RE- N° DRRZIA.INUFHltrIXFH'FJ= Project o. 12082K
ROUTE FOR STORM WATER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED Shoot 1
December 9 2012
Appeal of Tree Removal Permit issued for 8 Hickory Lane
Submitted by
Jeffrey R. Ramsay
6 Hickory Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 847 564 3535
Comments:
The ordinance in question is a “Tree Preservation Ordinance”
In my view the primary effort made by the village was not made towards preservation of the existing
landmark trees, but rather to accommodate the construction plans.
No sizable, existing landmark trees are being saved.
The permit was issued for removal of 70 trees on a heavily wooded 1 acre lot. This is in remarkable
contrast to the existing neighborhood and surrounding homes on Hickory Lane.
I agree ash, elm and buckthorn should be removed where appropriate.
However the very largest landmark trees are being removed to accommodate this construction. This is
not tree preservation. The permit should not be issued as it stands. These landmark trees must be
preserved.
Of the 3 Heritage trees to be “saved” there is not currently, adequate protection to insure their survival.
My strongest objection is to the removal of the very large red oak trees close to the street on the east
side of the existing house and the very large dual stem oak on the southwest side of the existing
structure.
The fact that a bond has been established does not replace 30” trees that are over 100 years old. The
character of the neighborhood, the native forest and the surrounding area are unique to this part of
Northbrook and are simply irreplaceable.
What provisions are made if the 3 Heritage trees die due to poor construction management?
What is to stop the new owners from forfeiting the bond. $16,000 is a small amount in the very large
construction budget.
Has the replacement plan been reviewed by the village arborist. 34 2 “ replacement trees do not
adequately replace the landmark trees and will never look like the old growth forest that is there today.
These trees should not be removed to accommodate construction requirements. Construction
accommodations should be made to harmonize these trees into any proposed structure.
December 10, 2012
Appeal of Tree Removal Permit issued for 8 Hickory Lane
Submitted by
Traci Trapp
5 Hickory Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 847 291 7857
Comments:
The ordinance in question is a “Tree Preservation Ordinance”
I have a few concerns in regards to the tree removal plan for the property at 8 Hickory Lane. Do the
Landmark Oaks marked for removal have to be removed? Has every possible option been considered
prior to removing the mature trees? What steps will be used to protect the trees not marked for
removal? How will the Village enforce the planting of replacement trees? The $16,000 fee does not
seem adequate enough to ensure that trees will be replanted, it could be deemed just a cost of building
and be worth walking away from.
Another concern I have with removing all of the trees on this lot is the effect it will have on water
drainage. Our lane does not have storm sewers and changing the grade and pervious surface area can
greatly impact the surrounding homeowners' properties. Please keep in mind the increased seepage
that tree roots allow and their importance to prolong the runoff during a heavy rain, i.e. collecting water
on leaves and branches.
I feel there is a very unique charm to our lane and what creates that charm is all of the mature trees
surrounding everyone's home. I just want to make sure that proper concern is taken into consideration
before all these trees are removed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Traci Trapp
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
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 that may qualify as protected
trees due to their size, location, or both. Utility companies having overhead facilities within public
rights-of-way or utility easements located on private property may apply for group tree permits to
conduct scheduled, nonemergency pruning of groups of trees. Prior to issuance of a permit to a utility
company, a degreed forester or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture on behalf
of the utility company shall meet with the village manager's designee and they shall jointly inspect each
tree to be pruned and agree on the manner of pruning each tree. No group permits shall be issued for
pruning of any species of elm between April 1 and October 31, or any species of oak between April 1
and July 31, except when expressly authorized by the village manager's designee to alleviate an
imminent hazard.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Pruning. A tree permit shall not be required for the pruning of any tree on private property by
the property owner or his representative in compliance with the National Pruning Standards.
(2) Tree emergency. In the case of a tree emergency, as defined in section 25-2 of this Code,
the village manager is hereby authorized to:
a. Issue a tree permit without a tree permit application;
b. Waive the requirement for a tree permit set forth in this section; or
c. Waive any of the other regulations of this section or this chapter.
Notwithstanding any other regulations of this Code, if a tree emergency occurs, the person
endangered by the tree emergency may take any reasonable action necessary to avoid or
eliminate the immediate danger or hazard. The action taken shall be an action that is least
likely under the circumstances to cause damage or removal of any trees, and the village
assumes no responsibility or liability for any such action taken. The person taking such action
shall document the reasons for the tree emergency by photography or videotape of the tree
emergency condition and the damage or hazard created by such condition, and shall report
the action taken to the department of public works within forty-eight (48) hours after the
action is taken.
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001)
Sec. 25-11. - Tree permit application process.
(a) Application. Applications for a tree permit shall be submitted to the village manager on a form
provided by the village manager setting forth or otherwise providing the following information:
(1) The owner's name and address and the owner's signed consent to the application;
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 1 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
(2) The applicant's name and address, if different than the owner, and his interest in the
property;
(3) Size, genus and species, and location of the affected trees and the location of the property
on which the regulated tree activity will occur, including street address or legal description;
(4) A brief explanation of reasons for the proposed regulated tree activity;
(5) A tree replacement plan, if applicable, in accordance with section 25-13 of this article;
(6) A construction activity protection plan, if applicable, in accordance with section 25-14 of this
article; and
(7) Such other data and information as the village manager shall deem necessary to allow full
and fair consideration of the tree permit application.
(b) Property inspection and on-site consultation. Upon receipt of a tree permit application, the village
manager, or his designee, shall:
(1) Visit and inspect the property and contiguous and adjoining lots in order to evaluate the tree
permit application; and
(2) Provide an on site consultation with the applicant to:
a. Review the proposed regulated tree activity;
b. Suggest alternatives to the proposed regulated tree activity where said activity may
result in the possible damage or destruction of a protected tree; and
c. Provide instruction on the long term continuing care of any protected tree that is subject
to the tree permit application, as well as any other protected trees on the property.
(c) Approval.
(1) Protected tree not in a required yard. If the protected tree is not located in a required yard,
the village manager shall approve a tree permit application and issue a tree permit immediately
after the on site consultation if, based on the tree permit application, inspection of the property,
and the on site consultation with the property owner, or applicant, as well as all other reliable and
relevant information, the village manager determines that both of the following conditions have
been met:
a. The proposed regulated tree activity has been planned and will be performed in such a
manner, to such a degree, and with such equipment and personnel, so as to (a) reasonably
involve the least amount of damage or removal of trees and (b) not defeat, or be inconsistent
with, the purposes and intent of this chapter as expressed in section 25-1 of this chapter.
b. The tree permit application, including, without limitation, the construction activity
protection plan, if required, satisfies the requirements of this chapter.
(2) Protected tree in a required yard. If the protected tree is located in a required yard, the village
manager shall approve a tree permit application and issue a tree permit (i) using the same
standards as set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this section, and (ii) only after the applicant has
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 2 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
submitted a replacement guarantee in a form satisfactory to the village manager, and consistent
with subsection 25-13(c)(2) of this chapter.
(c) Conditions on tree permit. As a condition of the issuance of a tree permit, the village manager may
require one (1) or more of the following:
(1) That any or all protected trees, located anywhere on a lot, that may be affected by such
regulated tree activity be preserved and protected;
(2) That any or all landmark trees or heritage trees located anywhere on a lot that is immediately
adjacent to the lot on which the regulated tree activity does, or is to, take place be preserved and
protected; or
(3) That any or all protected trees, located anywhere on a lot, that may be affected by such
regulated tree activity be replaced, in accordance with the tree replacement standards in section
25-13 of this chapter.
(d) Denial. If the tree permit application, inspection of the property, on site consultation and
consideration of all other reliable and relevant information reveal that the applicant has not satisfied the
conditions of subsection (c) of this section, or has not otherwise justified the damage or removal of
trees to the satisfaction of the village manager, then the village manager shall promptly notify the
applicant that the tree permit application is denied and that no tree permit shall be issued.
(e) Exemptions. The village manager shall have the authority to exempt a regulated tree activity from
the tree permit application requirements of this Code in the event that he determines that any of the
following circumstances exist:
(1) When a protected tree, due to natural causes, is dead, dangerous, or interferes with any
existing or proposed public improvements, is in dangerous proximity to any public utility lines or
related facilities, or is a diseased tree or otherwise unsafe, unhealthy, or insect infected and
constitutes a hazard to persons, property, or other trees.
(2) When a protected tree, due to natural causes, obstructs any street, sidewalk, or any
pedestrian path, to such an extent that such protected tree interferes with free passage and clear
view along such street, sidewalk, or path and at any street or driveway intersection.
(3) When removal of a protected tree is necessary to comply with the current standards
generally observed by professionals in the arboricultural, forestry, landscaping, and landscape
architecture professions.
(4) When removal of a protected tree is necessary to properly enhance the health and
appearance of existing trees, shrubs and Other vegetation in a manner to implement a
landscaping scheme that the village manager determines complies with the current standards
generally observed by professionals in the arboriculture, forestry, landscaping, and landscape
architecture professions.
(5) When removal of a protected tree is necessary to avoid denying an applicant a reasonable
economic use of the applicant's property, or when the applicant otherwise demonstrates a
hardship or special and unique circumstances.
(f) Appeals.
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 3 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
(1) Appeal to public works committee. Appeals from any decision of the village manager (1)
issuing or revoking a tree permit, (2) denying a tree permit application, or (3) granting or denying
an exemption, pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, may be taken by an applicant or any
other person adversely affected by any such decision. All such appeals shall be taken initially to
the public works committee of the board of trustees by filing a written notice of appeal with the
village manager within five (5) days following receipt of notice of the village manager's decision
from which the appeal is taken. Within twenty-one (21) days following receipt of the written notice
of appeal, the public works committee shall meet and review the tree permit application and any
other reliable and relevant evidence, documents, or information, and may receive and consider
new evidence. Within thirty (30) days after the village manager receives the written notice of
appeal of the village manager's decision, the public works committee shall render a
recommendation to the board of trustees to either uphold, reverse, or amend the village
manager's decision. The village manager shall notify the person who filed the appeal within two
(2) business days after such recommendation and shall provide such person a copy of the
recommendation, as well as the date upon which the board of trustees will consider the
recommendation.
(2) Final decision by the board of trustees. Within thirty (30) days after the public works
committee's recommendation, the board of trustees shall review the findings of the public works
committee's recommendation and may receive and consider new evidence. Within thirty (30) days
after review of the public works committee's recommendation, the board of trustees shall render its
decision at a regularly scheduled meeting. The action taken by the board of trustees shall be final.
The village manager shall notify the person who filed the appeal within five (5) days after such
final action.
(3) Stay of regulated tree activities. The filing of a written notice of appeal pursuant to this
section shall stay all regulated tree activity and other activity for which a tree permit subject to the
appeal has been granted or sought.
(g) Term of tree permit; expiration and renewal. Tree permits shall have the same term, and be
subject to the same expiration and renewal provisions, as are applicable to building permits issued
pursuant to Article I of Chapter 6 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001)
Sec. 25-12. - Tree permit revocation and remedies.
Tree permits shall be subject to the same provisions for revocation and other remedies as are
applicable to building permits issued pursuant to Article I of Chapter 6 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001)
Sec. 25-13. - Tree protection and preservation required.
(a) Special heritage and landmark tree regulations. The following regulations concerning tree removal
apply to all heritage trees and all landmark trees:
(1) Heritage trees.
a. If a heritage tree is located in a required yard, removal of such tree shall be prohibited.
b. If a heritage tree is not located in a required yard, a tree permit for its removal may be
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 4 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
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.
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.
(3) Exception. If a heritage or landmark tree is declared a nuisance, hazard, or unlawful
obstruction of the public way, sections 25-16 and 25-22 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988)
will govern.
(b) Tree protection required.
(1) General. All regulated tree activities shall be planned and performed in such a manner, to
such a degree, and with such equipment and personnel, so as to (a) reasonably involve the least
amount of damage or removal of trees and (b) not defeat, or be inconsistent, with, the purposes
and intent of this Code as expressed in section 25-1 of this chapter.
(2) Construction activity. To ensure the protection of trees during construction activity, a
construction activity protection plan shall be required in accordance with section 25-14 of this
chapter.
(c) Replacement required.
(1) Replacement required. Replacement shall be mandatory for the damage or removal of any
protected tree that is located in any required yard in the course of a regulated tree activity, except
in the following instances:
a. Damage or removal of a protected tree which, due to natural causes, is dead,
dangerous, or interferes with any existing or proposed public improvements, is in dangerous
proximity to any public utility lines or related facilities, or is a diseased tree or otherwise
unsafe, unhealthy, or insect-infected and constitutes a hazard to persons, property, or other
trees.
b. Where a tree is lawfully removed and where, following such removal, the property on
which it is located will have a total of at least twelve (12) inches DBH of trees on the property
for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area in the combined area of all the
required yards.
Tree replacement shall be required regardless of whether the protected tree that is damaged
or removed is located on the same lot on which the regulated tree activity takes place.
(2) Replacement guarantee.
a. The village manager shall not issue a tree permit for the removal of any protected tree
located in any required yard without first receiving from the permit applicant a replacement
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 5 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
guarantee.
b. The amount of the replacement guarantee shall be calculated based upon the tree
replacement formula set forth in subsection 25-13(c) of this chapter.
c. The replacement guarantee shall be in a form acceptable to the village manager and
consistent with the form and content of the guarantees permitted under Subsections 3-502
(A) and (B) of the subdivision code.
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 guarantee 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, the letter of
credit 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
cancelled per the terms of the letter of credit by the village manager.
e. The replacement guarantee may be waived by the village manager where there will still
be at least twelve (12) inches of DBH of trees on the property for every one thousand (1,000)
square feet of land area in all the required yards after the proposed removal is completed.
(3) Tree replacement formula.
a. Protected 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.
b. Nuisance trees located in 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.
(4) Tree replacement specifications. All tree replacements shall be:
a. Of a caliper of two and one-half (2½) inches or more, except as otherwise specifically
provided in the tree replacement list;
b. Of a species listed on the tree replacement list;
c. In good health and structurally sound;
d. Made pursuant to a written time schedule approved by the village manager; and
e. Planted at approximately the same location as the trees they replace, where possible in
accordance with good construction practices and current standards generally observed by
professionals in the forestry, landscaping and landscape architecture professions, unless
otherwise approved in advance by the village manager.
(5) Tree replacement care. The applicant shall be solely responsible for the care, watering and
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 6 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
feeding of newly planted trees for a period of two (2) years and, with regard to such care, watering
and feeding, shall, at a minimum, adhere to the tree care standards.
(6) Alternative tree replacement location. If the village manager determines that full tree
replacement pursuant to the specifications provided herein will result in the unreasonable
crowding of trees upon a public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject property, or would
be otherwise inconsistent with current standards generally observed by professionals in the
forestry, landscaping, and landscape architecture professions, the village manager may reduce
the number of replacement trees to be planted on the subject property and designate other nearby
public rights-of-way, or other public property suitable for the location of new trees.
(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 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 within thirty (30)
days after the date of the damage or removal for which replacement is required.
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001; Ord. No. 07-71, § 2, 8-28-2007)
Sec. 25-14. - Construction activity plan.
(a) Plan required. A construction activity protection plan shall be filed with all tree permit applications
in which the proposed regulated tree activity is construction activity.
(b) Contents of construction activity protection plan. A 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) 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:
(1) Location of the property, including street address or legal description.
(2) Existing and proposed contours of the lot on which the construction activity is to take place.
(3) Building elevations, if applicable.
(4) The name of the general contractor or project representative, if any, responsible for the
proposed construction activity.
(5) A demonstration of the ways in which the applicant will ensure that the level of tree protection
required by section 25-13(b) of this chapter will be achieved.
(6) The location of all existing protected trees that are located on or near the property, and the
location of all trees other than protected trees that are reasonably likely to be damaged or
removed during the proposed construction activity
(7) A legend referencing the DBH, genus and species, general condition, and proposed
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 7 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
disposition of existing protected trees, that are located on or near the property and trees other
than protected trees that are reasonably likely to be damaged or removed during the construction
activity.
(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 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.
(c) Construction activity area. The construction activity area shall be the area of the property that is
the smallest area reasonably needed to undertake the proposed construction activity as determined by
the village manager. The construction activity area shall include the entire area affected by the
proposed construction activity, and shall also include any access route across the public right-of-way
and the private tree presentation area. Construction activity shall not be conducted or staged in any
area of the property located outside the construction activity area. No excess soil, additional fill, liquids,
or any construction debris may be placed or located outside the construction activity area. All buildings,
structures, and driveways shall be located so as to reasonably involve the least amount of damage or
removal of trees, shall nevertheless be consistent with minimum building setback requirements of the
zoning code.
(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 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. 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.
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001)
Sec. 25-15. - Variations of required yard restrictions [Reserved].
(Ord. No. 01-21, § 2, 3-19-2001)
Sec. 25-16. - Dead or declining trees.
(a) Any dead or declining tree growing or standing on private property is declared to be a nuisance
and a hazard.
(b) Any dead or declining tree that is declared a nuisance or a hazard must be removed by the owner
of the premises on which the tree grows or stands so that the nuisance or hazard is abated.
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 8 of 9
MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 25 - TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, VEGETATION
ARTICLE II. - TREE PERMITS, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
(c) If a dead or declining tree that is declared a nuisance or a hazard is not removed within fourteen
(14) days after written notice to the owner of the premises on which the dead or declining tree grows or
stands, the village manager shall instruct the director of public works to proceed to remove the tree and
all expenses incurred by the village in so doing shall be borne by the owner of the premises on which
the tree grows or stands.
(Ord. No. 07-71, § 2, 8-28-2007)
Secs. 25-16—25-19. - Reserved.
Northbrook, Illinois, Code of Ordinances
Page 9 of 9
1154
0
1160
1230
1 3 5
7
1226
1250
HICKORY
LEE
1306
1300 10
2 4 6
8
1304
1330
GRANT
1170 1150 1130
1100
1350
1302
BUTTONWOOD
1362 1406
1111
1175 1155 1135
1300
1370
µ
1150
1154
0 GRANT
1160
1230
1 3 5 7 1226
1250
HICKORY
LEE
1300 10
2 4 6 8
1304
1330
1170 1150 1130 1100
1350
1302
BUTTONWOOD
1406
1362 1111
1175 1155 1135
µ