If you are a Cass City resident thinking about planting a tree near the road or on a village right-of-way, there is one piece of advice that applies before you do anything else: call the village first. That guidance comes directly from the new tree ordinance that the Cass City Village Council recently adopted — and understanding why that ordinance exists helps explain why the call matters.
The new rules did not come out of nowhere. They came out of experience — specifically, the experience of having to remove several trees from the downtown area and around town last year. When a community finds itself dealing with a pattern of problematic trees that need to come down, the natural response is to look at what the existing rules say and ask whether they are doing their job. In Cass City’s case, the council decided the old ordinance was not adequate for what the village actually needed, and they acted accordingly.
Out With the Old
The Cass City Village Council formally repealed its previous “Trees and Shrubs in Public Areas Ordinance” before replacing it with the updated framework. Repealing an ordinance entirely rather than simply amending it is a deliberate choice — it signals that the council wanted a clean slate rather than a patchwork of changes layered on top of rules that were no longer serving the community well.
The old ordinance had presumably been on the books for some time, and like many municipal codes that age without regular review, it likely no longer reflected current best practices for urban tree management or the specific challenges Cass City has encountered in recent years. Rather than try to retrofit it with amendments, the council chose to start fresh — a more time-consuming approach upfront, but one that produces a clearer and more coherent set of rules for residents, village staff, and anyone else who needs to understand what is and is not allowed.
What the New Ordinance Covers
The replacement ordinance is comprehensive in a way the old rules apparently were not. It addresses the full lifecycle of a tree on village property — from the moment someone decides to plant one, through its years of growth and maintenance, to the circumstances under which it can or must be removed.
On the planting side, the new ordinance lays out how trees are to be planted in village right-of-ways and on village-owned property. This includes guidance on appropriate placement, spacing from utilities and infrastructure, and the approval process that must be followed before a tree goes in the ground. That last point is where the “call the village first” advice becomes particularly important. The village manager and the Department of Public Works superintendent now have formal authority to approve or deny a proposed planting location. That is not an arbitrary gatekeeping exercise — it is a recognition that tree placement decisions have long-term consequences for infrastructure, visibility, and public safety that are not always obvious to a property owner standing in their front yard trying to decide where a new tree would look nice.
The ordinance also includes a detailed list of tree species that are not permitted on village property. Prohibited species lists are a standard feature of modern municipal tree ordinances, and they exist for good reasons. Certain tree species are invasive and spread aggressively, crowding out native vegetation. Others are structurally weak and prone to dropping large limbs, creating safety hazards as they age. Some species have extensive root systems that interfere with underground utilities, sidewalks, and road infrastructure in ways that create expensive repair problems down the line. By spelling out which trees cannot be planted, the village avoids the situation it found itself in recently — dealing with the aftermath of trees that should never have gone in the ground in the first place.
Pruning standards are also addressed in the new framework. Proper pruning is one of those maintenance practices that looks simple but has a significant impact on a tree’s long-term health, structural integrity, and safety. Badly pruned trees can develop weak branch structures that are more likely to fail in storms, and improper cuts can create entry points for disease and pests. Having clear standards in the ordinance means there is a consistent benchmark for how village trees are maintained rather than leaving it to individual judgment or whoever happens to be operating the equipment on a given day.
When the Village Can Remove a Tree
One of the more practically significant sections of the new ordinance deals with the village’s authority to remove trees that have become hazardous or problematic. The revised rules make clear that the village can take action on trees that hinder visibility — a safety concern that affects drivers, pedestrians, and emergency responders navigating village streets. Trees that interfere with utilities are also subject to removal, which matters for anyone who has seen what happens when tree roots get into water lines or branches bring down power lines during a storm.
The ordinance specifically addresses trees that obstruct fire hydrants. That provision is not bureaucratic detail — it is a genuine public safety requirement. A fire hydrant that cannot be quickly located and accessed because it is obscured by overgrown vegetation is a problem that can cost critical seconds during an emergency response. Giving the village clear authority to address that situation without ambiguity is exactly the kind of thing a well-written ordinance should do.
The broader category of hazardous trees — those that pose a risk of falling or dropping limbs due to disease, structural weakness, or storm damage — is also covered. Property owners who have ever watched a storm take down a large branch and send it crashing into a parked car or onto a sidewalk understand why having clear rules about hazardous tree removal is important. The village needs the authority to act proactively in those situations, and the new ordinance provides it.
An Appeal Process for Property Owners
The new ordinance is not simply a document that expands the village’s authority without any counterbalancing protections for property owners. It also establishes an appeal process for residents who disagree with a decision made under the ordinance — whether that is a denial of a planting application or a determination that a tree on or near their property needs to be removed.
That appeal provision matters because tree disputes can be genuinely contentious. A tree that the village considers hazardous or obstructive may be something a homeowner has watched grow for decades and values deeply. Giving property owners a formal channel to contest decisions they believe are wrong — rather than leaving them with no recourse — is a meaningful recognition that the village’s authority in this area, while legitimate, is not unlimited.
The existence of that appeal process also creates accountability on the village’s side. Knowing that decisions can be formally challenged encourages village staff and officials to make sure their determinations are well-reasoned and defensible, rather than arbitrary. That is good for everyone involved.
A Practical Note for Residents
The practical takeaway for Cass City residents is uncomplicated: before buying a tree intended for anywhere near a village right-of-way or public property boundary, contact the village. Find out whether the species you are considering is on the prohibited list. Ask about the approved planting locations in your area. Get the necessary sign-off from the village manager or DPW superintendent before anything goes in the ground.
That conversation costs nothing and takes very little time. Skipping it and planting a prohibited species or putting a tree in the wrong location can result in the village requiring its removal — at the property owner’s expense and inconvenience — down the road. The new ordinance is not designed to make tree planting difficult. It is designed to make sure that when trees go in, they are the right trees in the right places, maintained the right way, for the long-term benefit of the community.
Cass City has been active on several governance fronts recently. The village council’s February meeting addressing the rezoning proposal for new housing development showed a council that is thinking carefully about how land use decisions shape the community’s future. The new tree ordinance reflects that same careful approach applied to a different but equally tangible aspect of village life — the public spaces and streetscapes that residents move through every single day.
At the broader county level, similar conversations about public resources and community standards are ongoing. The Deckerville Village Council’s upcoming budget hearing on March 16th is another example of small Michigan communities making deliberate, public decisions about how shared resources are managed and what standards govern village-owned property going forward.
For Cass City residents who want to review the specific list of prohibited tree species or the full text of the new ordinance, contacting the village clerk’s office directly is the best starting point. And for anyone wanting to understand best practices in municipal tree management more broadly, Michigan State University Extension’s urban forestry program offers research-based guidance on tree selection, placement, and maintenance for Michigan communities that aligns closely with the kind of standards Cass City’s new ordinance is working to establish.
