I recently endured the Wrath of Jan as we started our project and our builder failed to implement all of the tree protection measures before demolishing some concrete in our back yard. Our builder owned up to the mistake, but Jan nailed down a stop work order for over 3 days that not only stopped all outside work (reasonable), but also made us lose 3 days of inside work (unreasonable).
TP officials need to revise this law so that the arborist can only stop work that directly affects trees - having the power to stop inside renovation work is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the arborist's power. And don't get me started on the stupid metal fences that are no more effective than plastic ones and cost 3-4 times more...
C
Claire Schwadron
7 years ago
I moved to Takoma Park a little over three years ago. The protection of trees is important to me. I love the bird and animal life which depends on the trees. However, I bought a property that had been seriously neglected for many years, with a yard in desperate need of attention. When I paid my fees for the tree assessment - and then paid for a tree protection plan - I never heard from the arborist. And when I inquired, I was told I never paid (though my checks were cashed promptly). That was only the beginning. One year later I still have a dirt path to my house due to numerous requests by the arborist to revise my plan (there's one relatively young tree somewhat near the house entrance). Most recently, I was told I needed to lay some sort of mesh around the tree's roots - an expensive and questionable requirement. All I want is a simple stone path to my house! (It's dirt a gravel right now). Jan actually asked it I would consider a wooden walkway! Tree protection is important, but my house is not in a forest preserve. This has been a frustrating and irrational process. I fully support the changes outlines in the petition.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
I agree that the ciy arborist has a difficult and thankless job. Our urban forest does need to be protected and it does enhance our lives dramatically. That being said, the process is more onerous than necessary and needs to be streamlined. The basic fees seem reasonable, but if a 3rd party is required to prepare a tree save plan, the expense to residents is excessive. That requirement should only be in extreme cases, if at all.
J
Jeff Tessin
7 years ago
These are great changes.
The main problem is that the law puts no limit on the arborist's decisions, except that the city shall approve "all reasonable [protection] measures." Cost? Effectiveness? Timeliness? It's all up to the arborist. The city routinely requires gold-plated protection that many people can't afford. Let's cap the cost of tree protection or otherwise require the arborist to consider benefits *and* costs.
I would also limit the scope of the law. The current tree law requires the arborist to approve digging a 5'x5' garden bed within 50' of a 7.5" diameter tree. That's ridiculously intrusive. Let's increase the diameter to something like 15" and disturbed ground to 300 sq ft. The arborist could spend more time helping us manage trees and less time harassing us with arbitrary protection requirements.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
I would suggest only allowing adjoining neighbors to have a say if the tree in question touches their property. For our project, we had one neighbor who used the tree protection process as a way to hijack progress on our project even though the tree we needed to remove was nowhere close to his house. It took a few grueling hearings of made up concerns before we were able to proceed.
A
Airi Maeno
7 years ago
The tree permitting process held up construction on our project for several months and cost us well in excess of $10,000 in carrying costs, tree protection and required additional contracting of arborists. While I absolutely believe in the importance of protecting our local environment, the inflated time, cost and frustration that it took to execute these measures were entirely unnecessary and any accountability for lack of efficiency in the process is unaddressed by the current system
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
I find the process to be unnecessarily burdensome on the residents of TKPK.
A
Anonymous in Ward 2
7 years ago
Featured
I think the most frustrating part of my experience with the current arborist is that i followed the example diagram from tree protection plan application. Even though i showed almost the exact same thing as the example, he rejected it saying it needs more information. I'm sure he would have rejected the example drawing that we have to follow. Absurd.
T
Takako
7 years ago
It should not cost thousands of dollars for residents to manage tree for the safety of property and lives!
A
Alex G Hettinger
7 years ago
We love trees, but also had a difficult, expensive, time-consuming trial when we had to get a tree permit a few years ago. I agree with all of these reform proposals.
And, I do not see them as being contrary to tree protection. In fact, if these proposals were implemented, it would save residents a lots of time and money, and they may even be more willing to pay larger tree fees (e.g. to help cover the costs of a part-time assistant/backup arborist and/or divert part of the funds into a donation to the city’s tree planting fund).
D
David Miller
7 years ago
I'm in the midst of working with a landscaper on a Tree Protection Plan and am witnessing firsthand the inefficiencies and unreasonable constraints. I had worked with Todd in the past and agree that the process was more timely and reasonable. I fully support these practical suggestions to improve the process and drive more accountability/responsiveness of the new arborist.
J
John Hemphill
7 years ago
From the reports, it sounds as if regulatory change is needed. In the meantime, who is Jan's supervisor, who should establish service and performance standards? And the Council should direct the City Administrator to determine why this decline in service by city staff has occurred and to correct it.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Well stated petition. Fully agree. I have often wondered going through this process if the good people working for our city, ( I believe they are well-meaning and dedicated to their professions) know the extent to which this process i.e., the way it is implemented, is a burden to residents. It feels massively burdensome and punitive. Technically speaking, the process sucks.
G
Greg Castano
7 years ago
Been through TPP process in the past year, total bureaucratic headache and daily annoyance/hinderance living around my own crazy, over-protected fenced in 'private' property. Also support comments about reviewing the entire plan, specifically for greater ease of removing residential and/or ROW dangerously large trees for community/public safety. We need better transparency around the parameters that are protecting these hazards.
R
Resident of Ward 1
7 years ago
Really annoying when arborist made me buy metal fencing and neighbor 2 doors down was allowed to use orange fencing somehow. Cost me $600 more.
A
Anonymous of Ward 2
7 years ago
I worked with both Todd and Jan. Todd = reasonable. Jan = unreasonable. Took forever to get tree protection plan and had to call office multiple times before getting attention.
F
Frank Demarais
7 years ago
Experienced tree protection in 2012, it was reasonable and thorough. The reports of the extraordinary requirements and expenses need attention and common sense adjustment.
K
Kathleen O'Neil
7 years ago
We can protect trees while making the process more reasonable and affordable.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
The current process is onerous, too costly and complicated, and encourages non-compliance.
Gude Ave home owner
I recently endured the Wrath of Jan as we started our project and our builder failed to implement all of the tree protection measures before demolishing some concrete in our back yard. Our builder owned up to the mistake, but Jan nailed down a stop work order for over 3 days that not only stopped all outside work (reasonable), but also made us lose 3 days of inside work (unreasonable). TP officials need to revise this law so that the arborist can only stop work that directly affects trees - having the power to stop inside renovation work is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the arborist's power. And don't get me started on the stupid metal fences that are no more effective than plastic ones and cost 3-4 times more...
I moved to Takoma Park a little over three years ago. The protection of trees is important to me. I love the bird and animal life which depends on the trees. However, I bought a property that had been seriously neglected for many years, with a yard in desperate need of attention. When I paid my fees for the tree assessment - and then paid for a tree protection plan - I never heard from the arborist. And when I inquired, I was told I never paid (though my checks were cashed promptly). That was only the beginning. One year later I still have a dirt path to my house due to numerous requests by the arborist to revise my plan (there's one relatively young tree somewhat near the house entrance). Most recently, I was told I needed to lay some sort of mesh around the tree's roots - an expensive and questionable requirement. All I want is a simple stone path to my house! (It's dirt a gravel right now). Jan actually asked it I would consider a wooden walkway! Tree protection is important, but my house is not in a forest preserve. This has been a frustrating and irrational process. I fully support the changes outlines in the petition.
I agree that the ciy arborist has a difficult and thankless job. Our urban forest does need to be protected and it does enhance our lives dramatically. That being said, the process is more onerous than necessary and needs to be streamlined. The basic fees seem reasonable, but if a 3rd party is required to prepare a tree save plan, the expense to residents is excessive. That requirement should only be in extreme cases, if at all.
These are great changes. The main problem is that the law puts no limit on the arborist's decisions, except that the city shall approve "all reasonable [protection] measures." Cost? Effectiveness? Timeliness? It's all up to the arborist. The city routinely requires gold-plated protection that many people can't afford. Let's cap the cost of tree protection or otherwise require the arborist to consider benefits *and* costs. I would also limit the scope of the law. The current tree law requires the arborist to approve digging a 5'x5' garden bed within 50' of a 7.5" diameter tree. That's ridiculously intrusive. Let's increase the diameter to something like 15" and disturbed ground to 300 sq ft. The arborist could spend more time helping us manage trees and less time harassing us with arbitrary protection requirements.
I would suggest only allowing adjoining neighbors to have a say if the tree in question touches their property. For our project, we had one neighbor who used the tree protection process as a way to hijack progress on our project even though the tree we needed to remove was nowhere close to his house. It took a few grueling hearings of made up concerns before we were able to proceed.
The tree permitting process held up construction on our project for several months and cost us well in excess of $10,000 in carrying costs, tree protection and required additional contracting of arborists. While I absolutely believe in the importance of protecting our local environment, the inflated time, cost and frustration that it took to execute these measures were entirely unnecessary and any accountability for lack of efficiency in the process is unaddressed by the current system
I find the process to be unnecessarily burdensome on the residents of TKPK.
I think the most frustrating part of my experience with the current arborist is that i followed the example diagram from tree protection plan application. Even though i showed almost the exact same thing as the example, he rejected it saying it needs more information. I'm sure he would have rejected the example drawing that we have to follow. Absurd.
It should not cost thousands of dollars for residents to manage tree for the safety of property and lives!
We love trees, but also had a difficult, expensive, time-consuming trial when we had to get a tree permit a few years ago. I agree with all of these reform proposals. And, I do not see them as being contrary to tree protection. In fact, if these proposals were implemented, it would save residents a lots of time and money, and they may even be more willing to pay larger tree fees (e.g. to help cover the costs of a part-time assistant/backup arborist and/or divert part of the funds into a donation to the city’s tree planting fund).
I'm in the midst of working with a landscaper on a Tree Protection Plan and am witnessing firsthand the inefficiencies and unreasonable constraints. I had worked with Todd in the past and agree that the process was more timely and reasonable. I fully support these practical suggestions to improve the process and drive more accountability/responsiveness of the new arborist.
From the reports, it sounds as if regulatory change is needed. In the meantime, who is Jan's supervisor, who should establish service and performance standards? And the Council should direct the City Administrator to determine why this decline in service by city staff has occurred and to correct it.
Well stated petition. Fully agree. I have often wondered going through this process if the good people working for our city, ( I believe they are well-meaning and dedicated to their professions) know the extent to which this process i.e., the way it is implemented, is a burden to residents. It feels massively burdensome and punitive. Technically speaking, the process sucks.
Been through TPP process in the past year, total bureaucratic headache and daily annoyance/hinderance living around my own crazy, over-protected fenced in 'private' property. Also support comments about reviewing the entire plan, specifically for greater ease of removing residential and/or ROW dangerously large trees for community/public safety. We need better transparency around the parameters that are protecting these hazards.
Really annoying when arborist made me buy metal fencing and neighbor 2 doors down was allowed to use orange fencing somehow. Cost me $600 more.
I worked with both Todd and Jan. Todd = reasonable. Jan = unreasonable. Took forever to get tree protection plan and had to call office multiple times before getting attention.
Experienced tree protection in 2012, it was reasonable and thorough. The reports of the extraordinary requirements and expenses need attention and common sense adjustment.
We can protect trees while making the process more reasonable and affordable.
The current process is onerous, too costly and complicated, and encourages non-compliance.