Supervisors in eastern Berks seek compromise in battle over mandatory tree removal

Jun. 9—Hereford Township supervisors and residents discussed possible compromises in a dispute over township rules requiring property owners to rid their land of trees found by an arborist to be dangerous, or foot the bill for removal.

"The problem, is not, for me, taking down the trees. The problem is complete government overreach," said resident John Yanan Jr.

Yanan's comments at Tuesday's meeting were met with applause from a crowd that seemed to largely concede that dead ash trees in danger of falling into township roadways are a problem in need of solving.

Many ash trees in the area have been killed and hollowed out by the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that arrived in Pennsylvania in 2007.

As in previous meetings, criticism from the audience of about 60 Tuesday arose from supervisors' choice of a solution: a township policy — approved by supervisors in August — that requires residents to take down trees on their property marked by an arborist as dead, diseased, or otherwise in danger of falling, or face liens or potential fines of up to $1,000 per day.

Around 1,700 trees have been marked for removal so far across two of the township's four quadrants, according to resident Matt Ferdock.

"We're responsible people. We're gonna take (the trees) down. But when you trespass, you vandalize, you tick us off, we're going to recoil like a caged animal," said resident Matt Spangenberg.

Echoing arguments made at previous meetings, residents and members of a citizen's group opposing the rules brought up the cost of removing trees — ranging as high as tens of thousands of dollars per person — and took issue with the township allowing an arborist to mark trees on private property, which they said devalues their homes and leaves residents liable for damages if a marked tree injures someone.

Dozens of residents repeatedly called for repealing the rules.

Unlike last month's meeting, supervisors addressed residents' concerns directly Tuesday.

Supervisor John Membrino said supervisors are sympathetic to the costs of taking down trees, but the ordinance is necessary.

"The idea of repealing the ordinance is off the table," Membrino said. "I don't think there's a consensus (among supervisors) to repeal the ordinance."

He emphasized that while the ordinance says trees must be taken down within 30 days of receiving notice from the township, officials don't plan to enforce that clause, and are simply asking residents to come to the township with a tree removal plan that fits their unique situations.

"If a guy has one tree, he shouldn't get as much time as the guy that has 100 trees to take down," Membrino said.

In an apparent step toward compromise, supervisors also voted to have the township's marked tree count updated to remove all trees outside of the right-of-way, as well as live trees that were marked because they are leaning but are not in immediate danger of falling.

Those concessions didn't satisfy some residents, who argued that supervisors' current leniency means little, since the stricter rules laid out in the ordinance remain township law.

A few residents brought up Solicitor Eugene Orlando's drafting of identical rules for District Township, which were proposed but eventually rejected, following public discussions.

Some accused Orlando of "peddling a poorly written ordinance" to local townships, and suggested supervisors investigate hiring a new solicitor.

Orlando said he developed the ordinance in July after a Hereford resident came to the township and asked for help with falling ash trees scattered around township roadways, which were putting people at risk.

Supervisors then asked Orlando to explore drafting new rules, which he said he did in line with what state law allows.

"Everyone was surprised by the sheer number of trees that the arborist said were dangerous," Orlando noted.

Several residents suggested the ordinance be placed on a six-month hold, while supervisors and residents explore potential compromises.

Membrino noted that enforcement of the ordinance is effectively on hold, as the first round of letters requesting residents take down trees still hasn't been sent.

He said supervisors are open to exploring solutions like taking out a bond to cover the cost of taking down trees township wide.

"But the question is — looking at the health, safety and welfare of all the residents — is it fair for residents who don't have any trees to have to pay taxes for the township to take down trees?" Orlando said.

Residents then brought up other public resources that are funded by all residents, like roads and schools, and argued that splitting the funding among the township would be fair.

Membrino estimated that having the township cover the tree removal could cost twice as much, due to the costs of bidding, insurance, and the state's prevailing wage laws for paying contractors.

A few residents suggested holding a referendum, while others proposed paying local road crews a set amount to handle the worst trees as issues arise.

The discussion continued for about an hour and a half, with many residents continually circling back to demands for a total repeal of the ordinance.

Those demands were repeatedly shot down by supervisors.