Comments on: What’s Up With the Clear-Cutting in Midway Woods?

By: treesrock

treesrock — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:31:34 +0000

Good point and realistic, however under the new tree ordinance that is being considered new developments are required to have 40% canopy coverage and they receive more credit for existing trees. But yes, they could grade and clear and plant all new trees, that eventually will be 40%, unless there are specimen t trees which would require special permission to take down and incur penalties. Trees do rock and are beautiful, but more importantly they are anchors of undisturbed soil as long as they are protected. Yes, there needs to be flexibility around the building envelop, but other wise existing trees should be protected and basement homes on grade should be strongly encouraged while grading and clearing should be discouraged.

By the way, the development disturbed over 160,000 square feet, it will be interesting to see how they comply to the stormwater management code that requires stormwater runoff to a level of 90% of that which would generated from the site in its natural undeveloped state”. That means they will have to have monster detention or a huge lake. Unless the city waived this requirement, they may wish they kept some of those trees.

By: GAK

GAK — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:29:53 +0000

That other 4 acres is off limits to any development – ever. There would be no guarantee – ever – that current tree preservation would be preserved with less dense housing. In fact, the only thing that you could guarantee is that many, if not most of those homeowners would cut down some, if not a lot, of trees.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:25:25 +0000

It’s all fun and games until a future (or current) owner wants to develop that other 4 acres in the future – and it happens because the possible tax income is just too too damn appealing.

Having less dense housing (with current tree preservation) spread out over 8 acres might be the less desirable of the two current options (and I’m not sure I completely agree with that) but it would keep keep high density off of the entire 8 acres in the future.

By: treesrock

treesrock — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:15:17 +0000

I used to think conservation subdivision developments were win, win. As a matter of fact I help write the CSD ordinance for DeKalb. However, after seeing this development, I reconsider. Most disturbing to me is that four acres of soil, which takes hundreds to develop to sustain the type of forest that was there was totally nuked. I love trees, but I see them more as anchors of soil retention for ecological harmony. A hybrid of a CSD and traditional development, where some land is set aside but total clear cutting is absolutely prohibited and basement homes on grade are required would be optimal and ultimatelyl be more integrated and require much less than 4 acres of soil disturbance. The connectivity of disrupted areas would be spread over a larger area, which in mind integrates the homes and the residents and has less of an ecological impact, particularly if the residents get involved in creating habitat. The margins may not be the same but I think most would be happier with the outcome and I it would reflect in the value of the homes.

By: W. Gibbets

W. Gibbets — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:09:11 +0000

Ok, first, the new guy thinks he’s funny, but can he keep it up? And second, my howling at the moon makes the Taj Mahal look like a 19th century Missouri school house.

By: GAK

GAK — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:03:31 +0000

I consider owls majestic. (I saw one flying over the remaining trees this morning). And I’ve seen Mr. Gibbets howling at the moon many times. Trust me – that ain’t a majestic sight at all.

By: Slappy

Slappy — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:54:28 +0000

That ain’t an owl GAK, I think that might be W. Gibbets howling at the moon.

By: W. Gibbets

W. Gibbets — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:23:27 +0000

Yes, it sucks, I know.