At a public hearing Monday night, Princeton Council voted to adopt an amended ordinance related to cutting down trees and shrubs. Originally introduced this past July, the ordinance was amended and passed 5-1, with Patrick Simon voting against the measure as presented.

Princeton’s Shade Tree Commission and Code Review Committee have worked on the ordinance, largely prompted by the escalating rate of teardowns as well as damage done from recent storms and the coming infestation of the emerald ash borer. The measure would call for taking the size of a tree being removed into consideration when deciding how many trees would have to be planted in its place. It would also address application fees and a tree fund managed by the town.

The Shade Tree Commission met last week to discuss unique issues associated with the ash trees and concerns related to the ordinance as originally introduced. Some modifications were considered and some trees would be considered exempt. Among them would be a tree posing danger to life or property, any tree fallen as a result of storm damage, and a dead or substantially diseased tree from natural causes or storm damage.

Several residents expressed concerns about issues such as fees and permits. “There are a lot of issues that have not been addressed for individual homeowners,” said Peter Madison, a former member of the town’s Planning Board. Calling the ordinance harsh and noting that he has planted 23 trees on his property over the years, he added, “There needs to be some consideration for what people have done in the past.”

Ron Nielsen, who lives on Humbert Street, said an unintended consequence of the ordinance is that it would end up causing greater expense for homeowners. “The proposed changes will only add to the cost and hassle,” he said. “Please revise it.” Longtime Princeton resident Sam Procaccini objected to the ordinance because he and his wife want to build a small house, “not a McMansion,” he said. “You’re really penalizing not the builders, but retired residents like my wife and I who want to stay in town.”

Wendy Mager, who lives on Cherry Hill Road and is president of Friends of Princeton Open Space, said she understands residents’ concerns. But “the increase in trees being cut down is unsettling and certainly lends credence to the idea of introducing and ultimately passing this ordinance,” she said. Architect Jeffery Clarke called the ordinance “insulting to those of us who take care of things. Overly burdensome regulations and higher taxes and fees are the reasons people are leaving this state,” he said.

Naturalist Steve Hiltner, who lives on North Harrison Street, suggested that some type of incentives might be encouraging. “It would be a more positive way than punishing people who are already doing what you want,” he said.

Councilman Bernie Miller commented, “We need to go back to why we started this process: the present shade tree ordinance was not working. There was concern that we are losing our tree canopy in this town.” Stressing that the ordinance is “not intended to be punitive,” he urged getting something in place as quickly as possible.