By Bob Seidenberg
An Evanston homeowner’s young elm tree — currently leaning over a neighbor’s garage, and projected to grow in that direction in coming years — will remain in place at least a few months, in the first test of the of the city’s private tree ordinance.
At Monday’s Human Services Committee meeting, Council Member Devon Reid (8th Ward) successfully urged fellow committee members to hold off approving a request for the removal of the private-owned tree on the 3400 block of Park Place, proposing officials wait a few months to allow a higher level assessment of the situation.
“Just given where our goals with the tree ordinance are, I don’t know if this is the time to grant this,” he said.
The homeowner, Kristina Pierce, asked the city Aug. 12 for a variation from the private tree ordinance to allow removal of the elm from her backyard.
Ordinance 15–0-23 went into effect June 1, with strong backing from the local environmental community. Under the ordinance, trees on private property can only be removed when they “are dead, imminently dying, at risk of failure, or hazardous to life or property.”
Pierce, who couldn’t attend the 5 p.m. committee meeting, wrote in a letter attached to her request that she understood the reasons for the ordinance and supported the move to protect the city’s tree canopy.
But she said with the situation left as it is, 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. Soon the other trees on the property will grow large and they will find shelter there as well,” she wrote, noting her neighbor backs the request as well.
No one-size-fits-all scenario
Leading off discussion, Council Member Eleanor Revelle (7th Ward), chairing the meeting, said she was sympathetic to the cut-down request, noting that “in four or five years, when it is really necessary to cut down the tree, then it’s going to be twice as expensive because the tree is going to be even bigger.” She also noted Pierce’s concern about the potential impact on her neighbor’s garage.
Council Member Juan Geracaris (9th Ward) said after reading through the case, he appreciated the background of what was happening as well, particularly the expenses involved.
“Years ago, I think I spent over $1,000 to remove a tree that was pushing on our porch,” he said. “And so, while I think this ordinance is never going to catch every scenario, as much as we have work to do to write something that’s one-size-fits-all, I think this is a situation where we should make an allowance here.”
Geracaris noted the effort Pierce had taken to mitigate the loss of the tree, planting other new trees on her property. That’s “a really important part of the ordinance — to actually replace what you’re taking out,” he said.
No ‘risk of failure at this time’ seen, tree coordinator says
During the discussion, Reid asked Angela Levernier, the city’s first tree preservation coordinator, whether she agreed with the applicant’s assessment that the leaning tree is “certainly going to be an issue” with the neighbor’s garage.
“Trees are living things, so you kind of assess them in time,” Levernier began. “But in general, leaning trees, when they grow as saplings, they produce wood on the opposite lean side of the tree, which generally makes it stronger. I mean, I can’t say this tree will do that as it grows, but that generally is what happens.”
“So what would your recommendation be here?’’ Reid followed.
“I don’t really have a recommendation,” Levernier said. “I mean the protocol is the city arborist goes out and if it fits in that category [provisions in the ordinance allowing removal], then we approve the permit. And if it doesn’t, then it comes to the Human Services Committee and they make the decision.”
After Pierce filed her permit request, Levernier noted in her report that the tree 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.”
“It should be noted that a full risk assessment was not completed by the City,” she wrote. “Per City code, tree removal permits are approved only when there is evidence that the tree poses a significant risk to people/and/or property, and therefore, a permit was not issued.”
‘Doing all the good things we want trees to do’: Reid
If the committee were to approve the removal, the tree would be subject to replacement and/or mitigation fee-in lieu requirements, Levernier noted.
In this case, for a 15.2 inch DBH (diameter at breast height) elm, the applicant would be required to replace the tree with 9½ smaller trees with 2-inch diameter trunks or pay a fee instead, an estimated $1,900 cost, she noted.
“Do you think that now is the time to cut this tree down?” Reid pressed. “Or do you think that it would be best to reassess in a few years?”
Levernier responded that “as it is now, it’s healthy. We don’t do a full tree risk assessment, that’s a higher classification, but they [applicants] also have the option to get a tree assessment done, and if it comes back ‘hazardous’ when they do a higher evaluation, we would approve a permit. I don’t think it would come back hazardous, but they do have that option.’’
Reid maintained that by waiting and figuring out whether this tree is actually a danger or not could be a cheaper solution.
Yes, “you pay a bit more to remove it [at its larger size], but you avoid the $1,900 in fees to replace the tree,” he argued. “And potentially, maybe the tree doesn’t become a danger and now “there’s a mature tree that’s sucking up more water and doing all the good things that we want trees to do.
“We want to be sympathetic, and I’m sympathetic to it [the request] too, but I think it’s just really important that we kick this off right and do our due diligence before we allow folks to cut down the trees or we undermine the purpose of the ordinance, and folks will start coming to us with all kinds of hypotheticals that aren’t backed up either by a certified arborist or by higher risk assessments.”
Decision to be revisited in January
Committee members Revelle and Geracaris backed his motion to table the issue until the committee’s meeting in January.
Contacted by phone after the decision, Pierce expressed disappointment and maintained that the added time would not make a difference.
A maple tree, also in her backyard, “is pushing the elm on an angle so it’s [the elm] going to continue to reach for light,” she said. “There’s no way the tree is ever going to straighten out. It’s eventually going to fall on my neighbor’s garage or it’s eventually going to have to come down.”
Homeowner ‘not personally comfortable with this’
A teacher, Pierce said she purchased her house from her parents in 2018. The maple and elm trees are approximately 21 feet from each other, “and both were seedlings that grew in the yard, thus not strategically planted to allow them to grow successfully in tandem once reaching maturity,” she wrote. “It is recommended that large trees be spaced 30-50 feet apart to allow branch out and grow. As both trees have grown, the Maple has taken over most of the backyard, leaving the elm to reach out westward to get sunlight.”
Currently, the price to remove the elm tree is around $1,000, she wrote, adding that the cost to remove it in five to seven years would double, “or likely triple due to the fast rate of growth for Elm trees.”
In addition, she said in an interview, because of the danger of Dutch elm disease, elm trees can only be trimmed when dormant in the winter, making it difficult to trim the tree to protect her neighbor’s garage on an as-needed basis.
Has planted nine trees over six years
“It’s not a good location. It wasn’t spaced right,” she said during the interview. “The arborist said there’s plenty of elms out there, and they do just fine leaning this way, but I’m personally not comfortable with this,” she said, citing the liability of it falling on her neighbor’s garage or the danger it might pose to her newborn or anybody else.
She also spoke of her efforts planting new trees, nine in total over the six years she has owned the property, including an apple tree, a rosebud and a jane magnolia in her front yard “so they can grow straight, and give them the best success in my yard.”
Two years ago, an entire row of trees was removed across from her house, she said in the interview. “They had cranes there and they ripped them all out,” she said. “That’s not what I’m doing.”
