Should it be easier for HOAs, commercial property owners to remove healthy trees in Lacey?
Lacey City Council had a spirited debate Thursday on whether to create a new ordinance that would make it easier for homeowners’ associations and commercial property owners to remove healthy trees.
The only option for those groups now — outside of an existing ordinance that regulates trees that are dying, diseased or hazardous — is to pursue a land-clearing permit with the city. But if the tree is determined to be healthy, that effort will fail under the current land-clearing process.
Planning Commissioner Manager Ryan Andrews presented the council with three options to consider on Thursday: to maintain the status quo and not make it easier, or to approve what he called a “land-clearing light” permit which could be applied to just HOAs, or both HOAs and commercial property owners, so they could remove healthy trees.
Lacey Mayor Andy Ryder said there are times when a healthy tree is breaking up its planter, or is pushing up concrete in a sidewalk, or is too close to a building that it should be removed.
It’s also a matter of fairness, he said. Residential property owners can remove up to five trees over a three-year period, provided a minimum canopy is maintained, but that option does not exist for HOAs or commercial property owners.
City Manager Scott Spence reminded the council that the issue arose about two years ago when the Greenbriar HOA approached the city about removing a tall tree that stands on 45th Avenue, between College Street and Ruddell Road. They were stymied after the tree was determined to be healthy.
They wanted to remove the tree for maintenance reasons because it was shedding needles and dropping branches.
“I’m not terribly sympathetic with an individual who doesn’t like picking up needles,” Deputy Mayor Cynthia Pratt said in response.
However, if the ordinance is approved by the council, the process to get the land-clearing light permit still will require a number of steps. And if a tree is removed and it’s relatively large, it could require that as many as seven trees are replanted and maintained as a result, Andrews said.
Still, the idea of removing healthy trees when climate change is such a concern is a thorny subject. If the council were to approve the ordinance, it would run counter to recommendations made by the planning commission, a volunteer tree task force and members of the public.
The council was nearly split on the topic. Deputy Mayor Pratt, Councilwoman Carolyn Cox and Councilman Michael Steadman were in favor of making no change.
“Trees provide shade, soil stability and water retention,” Pratt said. “It’s really critical we keep many as trees as we can.”
Mayor Ryder and Councilmen Malcolm Miller and Lenny Greenstein spoke in favor of an ordinance that would apply to both HOAs and commercial property owners.
“They should have the same ability to remove the tree as I do as a homeowner,” Greenstein said.
Councilman Ed Kunkel was quiet during the conversation, although Ryder seemed convinced that he had four future votes in favor of the ordinance.
During the tree ordinance conversation, it also was revealed that while the city’s most restrictive tree policy protects historic trees, the city hasn’t actually designated any trees as historic, Andrews said.
This story was originally published December 10, 2021 at 5:45 AM.
