As previously reported, the revised update to Decatur’s Tree Ordinance is scheduled for a vote this coming Monday. You can view the full ordinance HERE. A letter from City Planning Director Amanda Thompson to the City Manager summarizes the 9 month effort and the major points of this version of the ordinance.
The purpose of this memo is to request that the City Commission adopt a new tree canopy conservation ordinance and administrative standards. The 2010 Strategic Plan identified creating an urban forest master plan and adopting amendments to the tree ordinance as a community goal. In September 2013, the city initiated a tree ordinance revision process based on improvements identified in a 2008 draft ordinance as well as requests from various community groups. Public input workshops, online forums and work sessions have been held on this topic for the past 9 months. The proposed ordinance incorporates the best management practices recommended by the city’s urban forest consultants, feedback from the public and the Environmental Sustainability Board and the specific revisions requested by the City Commission. It acknowledges that the city has lost tree canopy over the past ten years and the city has identified the tree canopy as a community resource that requires conservation.
The proposed ordinance represents a significant improvement over our current standards. It switches from a tree density to a tree canopy measurement system which aligns the city’s regulations with the most current scientific knowledge about the ecological benefits o f trees. It establishes a canopy goal for residential and commercial properties. It provides protection for boundary trees and requires a more thoughtful approach to the design of construction projects to mitigate the impact on existing trees and ensure the success of newly planted trees. It includes updated management practices and a tree species list. Commercial properties are required to maintain a 45% tree canopy cover. Residential property owners can remove up to 3 protected trees within 18 months by filing a free, tree removal information permit. Residential property owners are held to a no net loss standard for projects that require a land disturbance permit or for the removal of the 4th protected tree within 18 months.
The most recent amendments include defining specimen trees and allowing double canopy credit for projects that preserve specimen trees. An additional amendment has been prepared for your consideration that allows residential property owners with greater than 60% tree canopy on their site to have more flexibility in the amount of replacement tree canopy that can be paid into the tree bank (Amendment A).
The ordinance has an effective date of Monday, July 7, 2014. In the next six weeks, the city will designate a City Arborist, hold public workshops on the new ordinance, recommend permit fees where applicable and create the necessary administrative forms for implementation. If adopted, the new ordinance will be integrated into the Unified Development Ordinance process with special consideration given to the relationship between stormwater regulations and tree conservation. City Commission approval of the proposed ordinance and Amendment A is recommended.
Nice memo. It’s missing one important point, though. The GREAT MAJORITY of residents oppose this particular ordinance. The city’s own Open City Hall outreach efforts even prove this point. Any commissioner who votes in favor of it will be doing so against the wishes of his or her constituents, appeasing only a small, vocal minority who wish to restrict property rights and create a legal, bureaucratic nightmare in the misguided attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
Fred, Jim, Kecia, Scott and Patti, please don’t do this to your city…
Better yet, Fred, Jim, Kecia, Scott and Patti–if you pass this ordinance as written, your city will most likely see you out of office next election.
That’s how I’ll be voting.
+1
Scott and Patti were the voices of reason when the really bad version came up back in March. Just sayin’
I have changed my mind with the most recent amendments and now support the revised ordinance. It is not perfect but will improve our forest over time. Thanks to all who worked on this challenging task!
It’s well beyond not perfect.
The handling of border trees alone will cause enough grief that people will lament not paying more attention to this, or result in a repeal after recycling the current commissioners.
Nobody should be able to impact the use of a neighbor’s property by what and where they choose to plant.
I think I’ve come up with a modification that might work – going on the assumption that this whole waste of time is intended to reign in developers.
Change the ordinance to exclude property owners with homestead exemptions. The tree requirements would only apply to developers, flippers, landlords, and commercial property owners.
Legal-types – is this do-able?
If the regulations were only aimed at developers/tear-downs, then I would assume they wouldn’t need a designated position to solely deal with that population. And if it were solely about trees then I doubt they wouldn’t have budged on the percentage of canopy they thought was reasonable, instead they would have attempted to make a solid argument for why they chose the magic numbers they did, instead of capitulating just to get something, anything, through. I just flipped through some of the old tree stories, and this whole thing has been mishandled since at least Jan (the farthest I had time to go back) with only bits and pieces of information trickling out about the new regulations at seemingly random and different times. This is certainly not a shining example of how to make policy.
I would love to see what a commercial site with 45% cover looks like. To me that sounds like a suburban wal mart site with a bunch of parking lot trees covering 45% of the site, not the urban downtown Decatur we love…half of Brick Store pub would have to be removed from the design to accommodate trees if we were to try and develop that store, or block, today.
I think the city needs to show us representative projects. How do they think this will look on a typical residential lot? an urban development?
I don’t know what the issue is really. When I look at historicaerials.com and review Decatur from the 50’s it appears there are many many more trees today than back then. No street trees on ponce back then, Lamont neighborhood is recovering from being farmland, almost NO trees on willow lane, Oakhurst appears unchanged… point being, it appears there are a lot more trees now than there was 50 years ago.
They are creating a problem where one does not exist,
I’m glad they are going to tell me what my yard should look like. I’m tired of thinking for myself.
Looking forward to the next election.
Sec 86-95 scares me.
The city….or any government….should never have the right, no matter how temporary, to enter private property.
My landholdings are not subject to the crown!…er…Decatur!
There is only fringe support for this ordinance. At the same time, there remains strong opposition.
Here is why:
1) The ordinance is unnecessary – there is no problem with loss of trees. The only significant losses come when thunderstorms drop our hardwoods on power lines and homes.
2) The ordinance is too complex – particularly the boundary tree section. Is this provision even legal? I don’t believe the city has fully weighed the consequences of a boundary tree law in a place where lots are often 60′ wide or less. The boundary provision stands only to create conflict and ill-will among neighbors in our newly appointed “Compassionate City.”
3) The pursuit of this ordinance has very little to do with trees – it has to do with preventing change in a city that is, in fact, changing. While the ordinance will not prevent change, it may slow it slightly and it will make life in Decatur more difficult.
The Open Town Hall showed a vast majority in opposition – if the Commission is not going to listen to the citizens, why ask for their opinions – i.e. why even bring this up for a vote? I am hopeful, however, that the Commissioners will vote against this ordinance. The people have spoken consistently and throughout this process.
I cannot make it to this meeting due to business travel and will therefore not be able to speak in opposition at the meeting – but I hope others will be there to express the feelings of most Decatur residents.
I won’t be able to make it tonight, either. If there is not a good representation of those opposed to the ordinance at the meeting, I hope the commissioners do not feel like they can use that as an excuse to vote for it. Doing so would completely ignore their own online polling, the majority consensus here and the private messages they have been getting. Such a vote would absolutely justify efforts to remove from office anyone voting for this ordinance the next time they stand for election.
“If adopted, the new ordinance will be integrated into the Unified Development Ordinance process with special consideration given to the relationship between stormwater regulations and tree conservation.”
*Special consideration? The stormwater engineer position has gone unfilled for about 3 years now, so it doesn’t seem as if stormwater regulation is quite as big of a concern as trees.
I am in strong opposition to this new extension of governmental regulation on my own private property. I already have a stupid detention pond sitting in my front yard that never fills up, then cleans the rain water just to be dumped right back on a dirty street to run 2000 feet into a water way. Now I am going to be told what I can and cannot cut down between my own land and my neighbors. If it passes I plan to pull out my good old fashion chainsaw and do as I please. The majority of the people I speak with are pro tree as am I but not in this way. We as responsible owners and stewards need to be trusted to manage our own lands and environment. I will plant trees as well as vegetation but I will also take out the ones that do not suit my purposes or visions for my own property.
As has been excellently stated by many commenters above and throughout the process, this proposal plain stinks. It’s unnecessary, riddled with a laundry list of complications and future legal challenges, and the people have proven twice that they don’t want it. Case closed, right? Maybe we should also discuss lowering my property taxes, since I obviously wouldn’t control it anymore.
The small group pushing this is being led by Decatur-based environmental consultants and arborists, who stand to gain from its adoption. How is this not a conflict of interest?
If you haven’t watched the May work session, take 41 minutes today to do so. Despite their cavalier attitude as they quickly gloss over the open city hall results, the Commissioners clearly don’t understand the proposal or what they’re doing. When they try to discuss real-world examples, they are frequently hesitant to speak; not just because it’s not feasible, but also because you get the sense they know what they are doing is wrong. You also learn that the city has been driving around, taking photos of people’s lots and that neighbors are lauded for calling in to tattle tale on development projects. If you experienced Soviet-controlled East Berlin in the 80’s or any other government where spying on one another is encouraged, you know that is not a route we should go down. I have better things to do.
One area not receiving as much focus is business. Under this proposal, there’s no incentive to expand an existing business or start a new brick and mortar, unless occupying a building as-is. Anything else gets expensive quickly. The recent announcement of Mama Bath & Body moving mentioned parking as an added bonus, but I can also see requiring a certain amount of space for trees versus your building, parking, etc. being disincentive for these companies to stay, especially when surrounding communities don’t require this. With a shiny, new downtown on the horizon, Avondale Estates starts looking attractive…
I’m also out of town on business, so can’t make it tonight, but hope we can end this once and for all. Others have mentioned helping opposing candidates campaign against the commissioners next election cycle. Add me to the list. At this point, I’d consider helping the right candidate(s), regardless of tonight’s outcome, because the Commissioners have shown they have forgotten whom they’re supposed to represent. I’d rather they don’t have the opportunity to waste any more of our time and money.
So, here is the link to the original arborist (landscape infrastructure coordinator) job posting for the City of Decatur, proposed for a June 1 start date (apparently overcome by events).
Interestingly, the header states that the listing was removed on June 1 of 2014, yet today we are in the middle of May of 2014. Regardless, the job posting may contain useful information:
http://icma.org/en/icma/career_network/JobAd/105638/Landscape_Infrastructure_Coordinator.
Most commissioners believe the developers and clearcutting is the problem.
Instead of focusing on that they create this complex document that nobody understands. And for reasons nobody can explain our Mayor is in a hurry to pass the legislation so we can tweak it later.
Please let common sense prevail tonight!
Decaturish just posted that this travesty was passed.
I just saw that the commissioners approved the ordinance. Time to clean house. Recall, anyone?
Probably not worth the effort for a recall, but I think Dear Commissioners need to have seen their last unopposed election.
Passed unanimously, eh? Vote em all out!
Of the gang of 5, Bassett and Cunningham are the first to face the voters. Their terms are up in 2015.
Out with the old & in with the new!
When you don’t listen to your constituents we have the right to replace you.
I just hope we can all remember next year as voters seen to have short term memory
Very disappointed in Scott Drake.
Decaturish quotes Mayor Baskett as saying, “The fact that this room is not full of people tonight may be construed as we wore people down.”
Such complete and utter arrogance, and significant in that he flaunts the commissioners’ willingness to ignore the responses on the website and in other places (e.g. DM).
I won’t forget this.
Saw that. He’s a real piece of work.
The full quote in context has him saying that a low turnout can be interpreted two ways: either process fatigue wore people down or that the current proposal has sufficient concessions to appease many folks.
Just outta curiosity, if that’s an outrageous assertion, what’s your explanation for the low turnout?
The point wasn’t that it was an absurd assertion. The point was that this guy would be fine with wearing the people down in order to feel better about a vote he knew went against the will of the people. And the most recent poll also showed 80% disapproval. Maybe everyone just knew it was a done deal…
Explantion? People have work and kids and lives. We’ve already turned out 2 or 3 times each to make our opinions known. There’s no question that this was simply them wearing everyone down.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Baskett says hey, you weren’t so vigilant this particular time, so hand over that liberty!
His arrogant sighing and misrepresenting of what the other commissioners had just said last time was the clincher for me. “Piece of work” doesn’t even begin to describe him. Sorry to you guys who personally know and like the mayor, but he’s proven himself to be out of touch and unconcerned with his actual constituents’ desires.
Here is another explanation. 2 separate official polls showed at least 80% disapproval (the number is probably higher on DM and other forums, and we know at least Fred frequently reads DM), but they scheduled a vote anyway. There is simply no reason for citiziens to show up and protest again as the decision to pass this ordinance was made long ago.
Of course he said that. I anticipated that yesterday in my comment above. I fully expected it from Baskett and I knew that Fred’s vote was in the bag for the ordinance. I’m just disappointed that the others went along with it, especially Scott. This was not willful ignorance, it was arrogant defiance of the public sentiment.
On the bright side, perhaps this will actually wake some people up to the shenanigans going on in city hall and motivate them to get involved and make a change…