By Bob Seidenberg
A northwest Evanston homeowner will be allowed to remove an elm tree on her property that was leaning over a neighbor’s garage, in the first successful challenge to the city’s private tree ordinance enacted in 2023.
In a unanimous voice vote, members of the city’s Human Services Committee on Tuesday granted Kristina Pierce’s request for a variation from the city’s private tree ordinance. Pierce brought the issue to the committee last year after the city’s tree coordinator had ruled against the request, maintaining the tree didn’t meet criteria that allow removal.
Under the city’s private tree ordinance, the committee has final say on the matter and the issue will not move to the council.
Contacted after the decision, Pierce expressed appreciation that committee members recognized through her experience that there were holes in the ordinance.
“I would really like the city and the council members to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this ordinance and work to kind of continue to revise it,” she said, “so we can continue to protect our environment and allow homeowners to do what is right for our properties.”
Pierce indicated she still might challenge a requirement that she pay up to $1,900 in fees or replace the elm with 9.5 trees if it is demanded.
With strong backing from the environmental community, City Council members approved the ordinance extending protections to trees on private property in September 2023. According to one study, at least 70% and likely closer to 80% of the tree canopy in Evanston is located on private property. Until the ordinance was approved, trees on private property were not regulated by City Code, except for those on property greater than 2 acres in area.
First to test the rule
In August of last year, Pierce became the first homeowner to file a request for a variation from the ordinance.
In a letter in support of the request, she said the elm in due time “will indeed become a hazard. I would like to remove it preemptively before damage is done to my neighbor’s property and before it becomes too large and incredibly expensive to move.”
“Removing it now will allow birds and other critters to find homes in the nearby maple or arborvitae trees,” she added. “Soon the other trees on the property will grow large and they will find shelter there as well,” she said, noting her neighbor backs the request.
Staff brought the request to the committee for review after Pierce’s request was assessed by a city arborist who did not observe any decay, structural defects or other conditions that would indicate the tree is at risk of failure at this time, Angela Levernier, the city’s first tree coordinator, wrote at the time. “Per city code, tree removal permits are approved only where there is evidence that the tree poses a significant risk to people and/or property” she wrote, explaining why a permit wasn’t issued.
Under the ordinance, if the Human Services Committee approves removal, a tree would be subject to replacement and/or a fee. In Pierce’s case, she would be required to replace the tree with 9.5 trees or pay $1,900.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Councilmember Juan Geracaris (9th Ward), moved that the committee grant Pierce’s variation request and Councilmember Matt Rodgers (8th Ward) seconded the motion.
“At least me personally with this request, I think we should grant the variation and move forward and let the homeowner incur the fees,” Geracaris said.
Private vs. community trees
“I have a problem with the city sort of intervening on a lot of these trees on private property,” Rodgers said.
“I think we need to re-examine our tree ordinance because this really comes down to who has the best argument for whether a tree stays or goes,” he said. “And it seems like we’re reaching a point where the tree has to be in imminent collapse before people are willing to take it down. And I really would like to see the city focus not so much on private property trees and really focus efforts on our community trees. We have a lot of work to do on trees on our parkways, in our parks, areas like that and I’d really like to see our focus there and not so much time on private trees.”
Council and committee member Bobby Burns (5th Ward), chairing the meeting, reviewed the facts of the case with Levernier.
“We know … trees are fast growing. We know it’s [the elm] is going to continue to grow. We know it’s going to continue to grow in a direction that increases the threat to this garage,” he said. “The idea would be, ‘Let’s permit her to do this now, when the cost [of removal] is lower than wait, until this is some huge cost.”
‘It could be corrected’
Levernier responded that “it’s not known for sure. It could continue to grow that way. With pruning it could be corrected. It’s growing next to a larger maple and that’s why it’s growing this way, so it could reach above that canopy and shift, so it could be monitored. But the homeowner in her variance explanation, I think she doesn’t want to wait.“
Pierce confirmed that was the case. She told committee members at a previous meeting that she is in full support of the work the city is doing to protect the environment, and spoke of her own work to improve the property, adding nine trees after buying the property from her parents.
The elm in question was little when she moved and seemed to be doing great under a large maple. “And then as it has gotten larger, it’s kind of taken off … it’s reached off to the west and it’s leaning over my neighbor’s garage.
“My concern kind of comes from just, I think, being a responsible homeowner,” said Pierce, who is a teacher.
45-degree angle
“It’s leaning roughly at like a 45-degree angle. Now it’s young but as it ages it’s going to continue to do that. And I think it’s going to get more and more expensive for me as homeowner.”
Rodgers said there’s an element of uncertainty in such cases. He said “if you allow a tree to grow a certain way, you never know when that tipping point. There’s dead trees that stand for many many years. There’s live trees that all of a sudden look healthy and just drop dead yet. So I’m in favor of allowing them to take this tree out.”
Under the ordinance, if the Human Services Committee approves a tree removal, the tree would be subject to replacement and/or mitigation fee requirements. In Pierce’s case, she would be required to replace the tree with 9.5 trees or pay a fee of $1,900.
Pierce indicated Tuesday she might challenge that provision if applied. “If they’re going to have me pay $1,900, I’m a single mother, I’m a teacher, I can’t afford it,” she said.
Also, are they “going to count the trees I already planted?” she asked.
“Next chapter,” she said.