The Carbondale Tree Board on Oct. 16 agreed to pursue a project to identify and resolve inconsistent language across multiple town documents that govern trees and the public right of way, and to form a public subcommittee to develop recommendations for the Board of Trustees.

Tree board member Josh Crawford led a presentation describing three primary sources the board uses: the town’s Tree Board ordinance, the Carbondale Municipal Code and the Unified Development Code (now part of chapter 17 of the municipal code). Crawford said the materials are “spread across multiple documents” and that the public and designers need a single, clear source. “The message that we put out there to the public, to contractors, to people who work with trees specifically in the right of way, it needs to be very clear,” he said.

Why it matters: board members said inconsistent language has produced uncertainty about which plans the tree board reviews, when the board receives submissions and what standards staff and developers must follow. Several members said the discrepancies make enforcement and public outreach harder and can undercut the board’s ability to advise trustees and staff.

Crawford walked the board through the history he cited: the Tree Board ordinance (originally drafted in 2002 and later updated), municipal code updates around 2015, and the 2016 Unified Development Code provisions that implement the comprehensive plan and include tree rules for parking lots, site triangles and development sites. He recommended the board analyze all references to trees and prioritize changes that are hardest to change formally — keeping the codified “bones” while moving adaptable guidance into annually updated standards maintained by the tree board and staff.

Trustee liaison Ross (present for part of the discussion) told the board trustees commonly approve modest code tweaks and said he expects trustees would be receptive to clarifying edits. “I can’t imagine that we wouldn’t, be supportive of of making, you know, a few tweaks here and there,” Ross said.

Board members discussed next steps. The group agreed a small public subcommittee should do detailed line‑by‑line review and return recommendations for the full board to consider; the board would then decide whether to forward recommendations to trustees. Board staff reminded members that Colorado open meetings rules require meetings of three or more board members to be publicly posted and accessible. Members were asked to email Crawford if they want to join the subcommittee; the subgroup will set its own timeline and report back to the full board.

Votes at a glance: At the start of the meeting the board approved the minutes from the Sept. 8 meeting (motion, second; approved). The meeting later ended on a motion to adjourn (motion, second; approved).

The board also discussed the possibility of converting certain guidance documents (for example the tree planting, maintenance and protection guidelines) from advisory “guidelines” into enforceable standards where appropriate. Members and staff agreed that moving high‑frequency, technical rules into annually maintained guidelines could preserve the flexibility needed to respond to new state regulations and evolving practices while keeping codified law stable.

The board asked staff and its arborist to participate in drafting language and recommended coordinating early with the planning and building departments to avoid duplication. The group placed no formal deadline on the subcommittee; members said they would report a proposed timeline when the subgroup first meets and would aim to present findings to the board before forwarding any formal recommendations to trustees.

The discussion closed with a request that Josh Crawford and other interested members be copied to the board administrator so meeting notices for any subcommittee sessions can be posted publicly.

The meeting moved on to other agenda items.