Trees in Roeland Park right-of-ways and front yards are now protected in the city code.
The Roeland Park City Council last week voted 7-1 to adopt a tree ordinance that intends to preserve the city’s tree canopy by protecting trees in the rights-of-way and front yards. Councilmember Tom Madigan cast the lone dissenting vote.
In general, the new city policy requires homeowners to replace protected trees that they want to cut down or, if replacing the tree is unfeasible, then they must contribute financially to the city’s tree fund. A city task force is still working out the details of the policy as it pertains to the tree fund.
This comes after years of discussing a tree preservation ordinance and more than a year after a previous version failed in a 4-3 vote.
Other cities like Mission and Leawood are also taking a look at tree ordinances in an effort to preserve tree canopies and address trees that are more vulnerable during storms.
The specific amount for the fee in lieu of planting a replacement tree and a tree fund policy — meant to be used for planting, maintaining, removing, replacing and trimming trees in covered properties — are the subject of a recently appointed task force. The task force is to report back to the full city council by mid-October.
The ordinance provides for a 90-day education period
- The ordinance requires Roeland Park residents and developers to receive the city’s approval to remove a protected tree, which are generally defined as trees with a diameter at breast height of 12 inches or more that are in a covered property like front yards or rights-of-way.
- If a protected tree is approved for removal, then a replacement tree needs to be planted.
- A “mitigation fee” can be made to the city’s tree fund (established in the tree ordinance) in lieu of planting a replacement tree under certain circumstances.
- The ordinance also outlines expectations for how developers and contractors need to proactively protect trees during construction projects, including the usage of protective fencing.
- No specific mitigation fee is included in the ordinance, which some councilmembers disliked, but others supported as the fee may change over time.
A full version of the ordinance can be found in the embedded document below.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab ‘Never been about taking away people’s rights’
- Most governing body members said the updated ordinance is less punitive than previous versions, which was a point of concern among residents.
- Madigan listed several reasons for why he voted against the ordinance, including a lack of interest in it from Ward 1 residents.
- Dickens, who has been generally opposed to a tree ordinance, said he thinks the updated version is as “good a compromise we’re going to get on this.”
- Councilmember Jen Hill said the updated ordinance gets to the heart of the city council’s goal: To preserve trees.
- “This has never been about taking away people’s rights; it’s about improving our environment, our community, and taking care of those things,” Hill said.
Next steps:
- Councilmembers Jan Faidley, Matthew Lero and Jeffrey Stocks are on the task force charged with recommending a mitigation fee and outlining how a tree fund policy would work.
- The task force is meeting with the sustainability, diversity and parks committees for input on these items, too.
- Given the 90-day education period, the task force must report back to the full city council during a workshop meeting no later than Oct. 21.
Go deeper: Watch the city council’s discussion online here, starting at 21:51.
