Interested in seeing the revised version of the Decatur Tree Ordinance based on feedback the Decatur City Commission gave to city staff last month?
View the updated ordinance draft, the summary of proposed revisions and the presentation from last night’s commission meeting HERE.
The summary of the proposed revisions is also shown below.
I am skeptical that this ordinance will make a difference (canopy neutral) as it does very little to provide incentive to protect existing trees. You cannot replace existing trees with new trees and expect it to be canopy neutral. I wrote a blog on this at http://thegrove.americangrove.org/profiles/blogs/healthyurbantrees#.U0Rf7pK9KSM
A solution is to provide double credit for trees over 8 inches. Also to require up to 5% of project costs for mitigation of healthy specimen trees before being tree banked or replaced with new trees. Most mitigation can save trees for very little cost.
Five percent of a $400,000 project is $20,000. I think there are a number of people who find $20,000 to be much more than “very little”…
Hurry, someone tell me what to think about this.
Just keep choppin y’all.
I guess Mr. Blazer @ DFMarket is glad his place isn’t in Decatur. He essentially clear cut acres and acres of land for his new parking lot and buildings. It looks so barren there now.
The bottom line is that the City Officials and City Manager have done nothing but blow smoke and wave mirrors. This ordinance continues to favor developers and clearcutting of healthy trees. It focuses regulation on homeowners who usually do not remove healthy trees, certainly not more than 3 within 18 months when there is no development/redevelopment taking place. Thus, the ordinance appears to do something when in fact it does nothing except continue to allow big houses on tiny lots with only small spaces remaining for trees that will never grow to the size that the developers are given credit for in their City-approved Tree Conservation Plans.
Don’t be fooled. Healthy trees are NOT being destroyed by residents but by developers. If you want lots of big houses on tiny lots and no trees (with overcrowded schools and the highest taxes in the state), then Decatur is the place for you and keep voting for these Commissioners. If you don’t, then join the rest of us calling for new leadership!!!
Residential developers are engaging in a commercial process when they develop a home site. Enforce the revised ordinance so that this type of development is recognized and regulated for what it is, commercial development.
Will they be selling soda pop and ice cream cones out of these homes?
Some of these homes are big enough for an entire ice cream parlor in the basement, so I guess it’s possible. And they are close enough to the street to install a drive thru.
I’m just tired of this and it seems that’s what a certain element wants. Keep bringing the same crap back and hope that people eventually get too worn down to fight it. Boundary trees, escrow accounts, 15% triggering…Just freaking admit that you don’t care what the majority of the community wants!
Even if there was indeed collective agreement that preserving our tree canopy was important enough to subvert individual property rights, the logistics of this ordinance’s consequences, both intended and unintended, will be a nightmare for many.
It’s like they’re saying “Wow, we let development get out of hand by doing nothing for 15 years. Now it’s too late to put that genie back in the bottle. So let’s screw over the only people we have any power over, our neighbors who weren’t smart enough to sell or rich enough to renovate before we made it impossible for them to do so!”
I again officially volunteer for the campaign of anyone who runs against any commissioner who votes for such a ridiculous, misguided ordinance.
+1MILLIONGOJINKATTIZILLION!!
The commissioners seem just as befuddled as we are when trying to figure out exactly what the draft ordinance is saying. Why on earth is it such an overly complicated mess? For a tree ordinance to be effective, it needs to be written so that folks can understand it and comply. I sincerely hope one of the commissioners will again raise a hand (just as Patti Garrett did in January) and say, “Whoa.”
To hear the work session: http://decaturga.swagit.com/play/04072014-758
(Part 1 of 2)
As per request of Deanne, I’m reporting the below (originally Posted to FFAF today).
Here’s my take on the revised tree ordinance-
If you were just worried about being able to remove a tree that you thought was unsafe without hiring and/or arguing with an arborist, or wanted to remove a few trees to be able to garden, the revisions enable that.
However, if you had concerns regarding the equity of the application of the tree ordinance, the revisions actually make equity issues WORSE. The concept of “No Net Loss” for residential property will be much more burdensome for many lots than the originally proposed ordinance. If you have 80% canopy coverage to start out with before your renovation, then at a minimum residents will have to preserve 40% of the canopy- and if that is the case, then also pay into the tree bank the equivalent of 40% canopy coverage to hit no net loss of 80% of canopy coverage. For lots with large canopy coverage, this is near twice the burden of the initial tree ordinance proposal! Commercial properties get no let loss applied to any canopy up to 45%, but not beyond– why can’t we have the same standard for residential properties? Residents who have high canopy lots and want to do some renovations will be doing almost all the paying for the preservation of what the ordinance identifies as a community resource. What about tree preservation contributions from the rest of the residents?
Also, the application of No Net Loss for residential is different than I heard some of the Commissioners discussing during the work session, which I attended. I got the impression that some Commissioners thought the net loss benchmark was the community canopy mark, not the individual lot canopy measurement. I would like clarification from each Commissioner that they are on board with no net loss of per actual lot canopy coverage…
Macarolina, thanks for adding it here– your take is very valuable! :0)
One thing I really don’t get is the ” 3 free trees every 18 months” thing. For most small lots, that ‘s about all the trees. Even though it’s unlikely folks will just start chainsawing trees down, it still seems weirdly out of sync with the stated community canopy goal.
I don’t get it either. I can’t see how anyone who cares about tree preservation could be happy with this- the 3 in 18 months rule allows any size tree to be included in the 3. That means that the giant oak on Melrose, which started the tree petition in the first place, would still be allowed to come down. Lots can also still be clear cut during builds/renos as long as neighboring trees are providing at least half the existing canopy. To me, all this ordinance is doing is making people who renovate or build pay for efforts to maintain the community tree canopy, and giving a free ride to the rest of the community for the canopy preservation costs.
J_T- it’s not crap. There are a LOT of people who would like to see the city take some steps to maintain Decatur’s current tree canopy. Honestly, I do not understand all the mud-slinging and scare tactics used by those opposed to any regulation.(yes J_T that’s directed at you.) Atlanta has had a tree preservation ordinance for many years that is more restrictive than anything proposed for Decatur. Land still sells for a premium (if you’re zoned to a good school), developers build big houses, and those houses sell quickly. Regulation was not an impediment to growth in Atlanta and it won’t be an impediment to Decatur’s growth.
And btw, I will campaign and contribute to any one who votes for the ordinance.
Well, OOOOOOOOK then. Let’s just say that I don’t think that using facts and logic equates to “mud-slinging and scare tactics”. Also, I never said that I was “opposed to any regulation.” I am, however, staunchly opposed to THIS attempt at regulation because it is, in fact, in my own humble opinion, “crap”. And yes, that opinon is based on actually reading the ordinance and reasoning out the likely consequences. Thankfully, I do not appear to be the only one who has come to the same conclusion.