BITTER-SWEETGUM … During a discussion on nuisance sweetgum trees, Jeremy Wright (right) offers his perspective while Chuck Wallace (left) reviews content on his phone.
By: Brianna Balogh
THE VILLAGE REPORTER
publisher@thevillagereporter.com
Braving the July heat, the Edgerton Tree Commission convened on July 24 for its scheduled meeting. Although the meeting was planned for 5:00 p.m., it was delayed by the late arrival of Chuck Wallace and Mayor Bob Day, officially being called to order at 5:06 p.m.
All members were present, including Chuck Merriman, Becki Wilmot, Jeremy Wright, Chuck Wallace, and Village Administrator Dawn Fitzcharles. Also in attendance were Mayor Bob Day, tree consultant Ted Hill, and community members Jamie and Angela Goebel.
The Tree Commission gathered to discuss a proposal regarding the property at 247 Indiana Street, adjacent to the old motel. Property owner Jamie Goebel explained that a sweetgum tree on their property had become increasingly troublesome.
Sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua) are recognizable for their star-shaped leaves and vibrant fall foliage; however, they also produce spherical, spiky fruits called “gumballs” that frequently litter lawns and sidewalks.
Mr. Goebel stated that they had previously raked approximately six 55-gallon bags of gumballs, emphasizing that this issue recurs throughout the year, not just seasonally.
Mr. Goebel elaborated that with his grandson’s young family, including two boys around five, the gumballs have become a greater concern than in the past. He expressed worries about young children walking barefoot in the yard and stepping on the gumballs.
He informed the commission that they were unsure how to proceed and were seeking guidance on the next steps. While acknowledging the tree’s aesthetic appeal, he noted that its beauty is outweighed by the constant litter.
Mr. Goebel proposed removing both sweetgum trees located at the front and western side of the property, replacing them with another species at their own expense.
Mayor Day then invited each member to share their opinion on the proposal. First to speak was
Wright, who offered a unique perspective as a village employee familiar with the tree species. He noted that, in conversations with several property owners, none had expressed appreciation for the tree’s “gumballs.”
Wright conveyed his understanding of the Goebel’s concerns, affirming that they seemed to be approaching the matter with genuine intentions. As a parent of young children himself, he remarked that lawn care isn’t his top priority, but he sympathized with those who invest considerable care into their yards.
Wright added that if he had a relative, such as his grandfather, living on a property where the gumballs hindered mobility, particularly with a scooter, he would also want the tree removed.
He expressed appreciation for Mr. Goebel’s dedication to his grandchildren, saying, “I love seeing your heart with your grandchildren,” and voiced his support for the proposal.
Mr. Goebel then added that while remodeling the house, he had observed the gumballs frequently getting lodged in stroller wheels, as well as posing a risk for tripping or ankle injuries.
Administrator Fitzcharles followed by noting that a storm main runs beneath the tree and that its eventual removal will be necessary when the village replaces those lines.
Wright agreed, sharing that although he loves trees, the location of this particular one is problematic. He observed that many property owners do not realize the broader implications their decisions about tree removal may have on others.
Nonetheless, he believed the Goebels were acting responsibly and prioritizing their family’s safety. He stated he thinks the Goebels are trying to do what is right and looking out for their family.
Wallace offered his opinion next. He commended the Goebels for their proactive approach in presenting solutions to the commission.
He highlighted a safety concern involving the sidewalk, which is frequently covered by “gumballs”, nearly forcing pedestrians to walk near the main highway. He referenced the village’s current sidewalk improvement project as part of broader efforts to ensure community safety.
Wallace stated that it is not like they just want to take the trees down for aesthetics. He cited an example from his own neighborhood where the Port Authority removed several trees but replanted others, an approach that met no public resistance.
He asked, “Do we want to stop progress in our town?” and reiterated that the Goebels had offered a thoughtful solution, including a replacement plan.
He acknowledged that every situation is unique for all departments, citing examples like firefighters and utility crews who must assess each situation independently based on risk.
In this particular case, the Goebels had identified a problem and proposed a realistic resolution.
Wallace concluded that if other village residents wish to remove and replace trees at their own expense, he would also support such efforts.
Merriman was next and wrestled with the proposal, stating it was a “tough one” for him. He sympathized with the Goebels’ situation but voiced concerns that approving it could set a precedent, potentially resulting in the loss of many healthy trees throughout the village. He reiterated, “I really feel for them.”
Fitzcharles reassured him that she had consulted legal counsel, who affirmed that each case would be evaluated individually and that no blanket policy would be established.
Merriman offered examples of other trees residents might deem problematic, such as maples for their sap, or nut-producing species like oaks and hickories. He posed the question, “Where do you draw the line?”
Angela Goebel then asked, “Is everyone going to be willing to pay to take down a tree and replace it like we are?” She reasoned that although others might express interest in removing nuisance trees, the cost might deter them once they realize it isn’t covered by the village.
Mr. Goebel added that the “gumballs” are produced year-round, unlike many of the seasonal examples mentioned.
When Merriman asked whether the gumballs grow larger over time, Mr. Goebel responded that he wasn’t certain, only that they fall throughout the year and are “a pain to rake.”
Wilmot was next to speak, beginning by thanking the Goebels for bringing the issue before the commission rather than removing the tree without consultation.
She expressed admiration for their patience, remarking that she wasn’t sure she’d have exercised the same restraint, especially as a grandmother of eight herself.
Mr. Goebel commented that he and the grandchildren enjoy running barefoot, but the front yard currently isn’t safe for that.
Mrs. Goebel added that they had even extended their driveway for safety reasons, aiming to keep the young children farther from the main road, citing a clear indication that their concerns extended beyond just the tree.
Wilmot shared that she had two large trees removed from her own yard and highlighted the significant expense involved, which many people might not realize.
Mr. Goebel agreed, noting that the work required can be tedious. Wilmot closed by expressing agreement with both Wallace’s and Wright’s views.
Mayor Day then called on Hill for input, acknowledging his role as a non-voting consultant. Hill began by pointing out that the value of the tree had not yet been considered, emphasizing that it’s not a simple one-to-one replacement.
He mentioned that similar species are scattered throughout the village and stated that, in most cases, the gumballs tend to smash when stepped on.
Aligning with Merriman, he cautioned that removing trees merely because homeowners find them undesirable could set a problematic precedent. Ultimately, Hill expressed opposition to removing the tree.
Fitzcharles followed, respectfully disagreeing with Hill. She began by addressing underlying tensions within the commission, noting that past disagreements have made progress difficult.
She expressed concern that politics had interfered with the commission’s effectiveness and hindered long-term growth.
She went on to highlight how village employees have assumed responsibilities originally intended for the commission, such as trimming, proper placement guidance, and watering. These tasks, she emphasized, were meant to fall within the commission’s scope.
She shared a personal anecdote about spending $5,000 as a property owner to prevent basement flooding, pointing out how rare it is for residents to come forward with both a problem and a willingness to fund its solution.
Considering that the tree in question will eventually need to be removed to access the storm main, she declared the issue a “no-brainer.”
She concluded by noting that the topic had been revisited multiple times without resolution and requires cooperation and effort from the whole group.
She emphasized that this was not a “one-size-fits-all” decision, but in this particular case, she agreed with the proposal.
In closing remarks, Fitzcharles shared that numerous trees have been planted over the past two and a half years following a long period of inactivity.
She noted the village is currently working to secure funds that would allow the Division of Forestry to assume many responsibilities originally assigned to the Tree Commission.
“It’s always pointing fingers and disagreements,” she said, “and I would really like to see us all come together. This is community-led, and we can do what’s right for our neighbor.”
Wallace added feedback from the Tree City USA meeting, noting that a newly appointed representative expressed interest in visiting the village and engaging directly with the Tree Commission.
However, the last visit reportedly started with seven members and ended with only three in attendance, and they felt they did not receive the full attention of the commission.
He pointed out that some neighboring communities operate with as few as three members, while others have up to eleven, stating he would like to see the commission expanded.
Wallace also clarified that not all members would be expected to physically trim trees. Many could contribute by overseeing watering plans, mapping tree locations, and identifying trees that require attention.
He suggested assigning specific areas of focus to individuals or groups, an approach recommended by Tree City USA. He mentioned the availability of forms that the commission could utilize to structure these efforts.
Fitzcharles agreed, adding that she believes community members are interested in participating but may be discouraged by past disagreements and political dynamics.
Hill inquired about a dangerous tree list. Fitzcharles stated there was one, facilitated through GIS and identified by an arborist.
Admitting that she was not an expert on the issue, Wright assisted with this process and offered to provide information to Hill at the next meeting.
The final opinion on the proposal came from Mayor Day, who did not vote but shared his perspective. He agreed with Fitzcharles’ sentiment that in the past, it was a paralyzing process. He stated he could offer a unique perspective, having lived next to the motel for 13 years.
Day explained that the trees were present during his time there, though not as fully mature as they are now.
Day stated he respected their view but did not personally view the tree as a safety hazard, though he could concede it was definitely annoying. He also reminded the commission that another property owner was involved in the decision.
He contacted the owners by phone, and they did not have a problem with the tree being removed and replaced.
Day mentioned an alternative treatment that could inhibit the growth of gumballs. He felt it might serve as a useful trial for managing the other 52 similar trees throughout the village.
Mr. Goebel questioned the video Day had provided, asking about its effectiveness. Day responded, “They say it works,” but noted that the timing had to be extremely precise, and Mr. Goebel agreed it would be hard to get it right.
Mr. Goebel also asked about the expense of that, with Day explaining that the village would have covered the cost and added that he had hoped the Goebels would support the initiative, with the possibility of hiring them to treat similar trees around town.
Hill inquired about how the injection method works. Day explained that the treatment must be applied around the trunk every six to eight inches and costs approximately $100 per tree annually. Again, timing would be critical to its success.
After every member had the opportunity to speak, Fitzcharles made a motion to approve the removal of the sweetgum tree and its replacement with an agreed-upon species. Wallace seconded the motion. It passed with all members voting yes, except for Merriman, who refrained.
Day made one final request for Mr. and Mrs. Goebel to coordinate with the village council regarding the timing of the removal and the selection of the replacement tree.
Mr. Goebel agreed and expressed his willingness to cooperate with both the commission and the council. He asked about a species previously mentioned by Fitzcharles, who clarified that it was no longer an allowable species.
Wallace questioned why the commission didn’t dictate the replacement species and suggested coordination with the trees across the street for consistency.
Fitzcharles responded that flexibility is important, especially this time of year when options may be limited. She advised the Goebels to opt for a smaller species as the tree would eventually need to be removed again for future infrastructure work.
Mr. Goebel reiterated his willingness to work with the council and offered to meet again to discuss and approve the tree species.
He also asked if there was a list of approved species he could reference. Fitzcharles said she could provide one and noted that the village had purchased five to six extra trees, as is customary, and might be able to supply one for the Goebels.
Day repeated his request for communication on the timing of the removal, due to the property’s proximity to State Route 6. He explained that cones would need to be placed to divert traffic and ensure safety.
Mr. and Ms. Goebel thanked the commission and acknowledged the difficulty of the decision. Day thanked them in return for their patience. Again, Mr. Goebel stated he understands the
process and was surprised to learn of the treatment Day had shared with them.
Hill suggested that the commission trial the treatment on one tree to assess its effectiveness. Wallace informed the commission of a yearly tree auction hosted by a nursery in Toledo.
He suggested it could be a great opportunity to purchase trees and proposed a meeting before the auction takes place.
Fitzcharles responded that this year’s tree funds had already been spent, but Day suggested a village representative could still attend and report back. Fitzcharles requested the nursery’s name and contact details.
Wallace noted the Cemetery Board was looking into the auction, and he could potentially get more information. He believed the event was primarily held online and would be taking place in October.
Noting that information, the commission decided to hold its next meeting on September 19 at 5:00 p.m., prior to the scheduled auction date. The meeting then adjourned at 5:44 p.m.