Text · page 113 of 117
Read the whole document on one page (all 117 pages, each with its own heading)
One change I particularly like compared with the old draft I would not carry forward the old $50 administrative charge. I'd instead have the Village establish an actual fee schedule based on the Village's anticipated costs. That gives you flexibility to have, for example, a tree fee, a bench fee, a plaque fee, and potentially an installation/site-preparation fee rather than having to amend the policy every time costs change. And I would not make the applicant responsible for watering a street tree as the old draft contemplated. The old language is somewhat awkward because responsibility could effectively fall on an adjacent property owner who had nothing to do with the memorial. I'd make the memorial tree part of the Village's ordinary tree-maintenance system. One final policy choice I'd discuss with the Board I think the most important decision before this goes to the attorney is who conducts the preliminary review. My preference would be: Applicant → Village Clerk (completeness) → Village Administrator + DPW Superintendent (preliminary review) → Tree Board only if a tree/technical issue warrants it → Village Board (final decision). That keeps the Tree Board out of the uncomfortable position of deciding whether a deceased person was “important enough,” while giving you a meaningful screening process so the full Board isn't receiving applications that are obviously inconsistent with the policy. And importantly, the first person's situation you described would have a clear path through this policy: residency isn't required, and a longstanding, recognizable presence and meaningful relationship with the East Aurora community can independently establish eligibility. The second situation would generally fail because merely admiring East Aurora's beauty, without a substantial community connection, isn't enough. I think that's the core distinction the policy needs to accomplish.