Residents Submit Tree Ordinance Petition to Decatur City Commission
Decatur Metro | August 7, 2013UPDATE: If you want to see what residents and the commissioners said about the petition at the commission mtg, here’s how you get there…
http://decaturga.swagit.com/play/08052013-836
Residents- click IV. Commissioners-click V (at 12:30 mark)
—————————————————-
Lots of news out of Monday’s City Commission meeting. Another item of note, which Debbie summarized in a recap/summary email to DM this morning…
Residents of Lenox Place and Glenwood Estates submitted a petition on Monday to the City Commission meeting. The petition requests that the City strengthen and enforce the current city tree ordinance in order to protect the city’s mature tree canopy from aggressive development. Speakers included Cassandra Lawson, a beekeeper for Oakhurst Garden, The Frazer center, The Turner family and other local clientel; Catherine Fox, who is the steward of a specimen oak that is currently threatened by development and owns the environmental consulting firm and Fox Environmental; and several Lenox Place and Decatur residents.
Future plans include meeting with local business owners and neighbor associations to rally additional support. The group plans on submitting the signed petitions at the next City Commission meeting.
Latest from Decaturish
Did they submit a proposed amendment to the ordinance? If so, can you get a copy? If not, I am not sure there is anything to comment on and this is nothing more than a few residents who want to interfere with personal property rights and have more control over their neighbors’ yards.
+1 for DogFan’s comments!!!
This is just another layer of Bureaucratization to private property “Just what we do not need”
Blah, blah, blah. This is about outside developers and their impact on a existing community, not about individual rights.
A steward to a particular tree? How does that work?
I would sign a petition asking the city help pay for removal of the weak and dying trees that keep toppling over.
If the city had a stricter ordinance on developers destroying the tree canopy and killing old trees, then your problem would be lessened.
Hi,
our online petition can be found here if you would like to read it:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/petition-to-save-decatur?source=c.em.mt&r_by=8547258
I don’t think I have read such anti-development, anti-capitalist drivel since I last visted GGD’s webiste. Cash bonds for damage on “nearby” properties? I guess the causation issues with such a statement aren’t apparent to you. Stop work orders? Really? Even after the city has issued permits and signed off? Tripling fines for trimming trees? Last time I checked, I am free to trim branches overhanging my property.
Since when is accountability for externalities anti-capitalist? Reread your Hayek.
ugh
sorry, won’t get my signature
Please explain the Tree Bank referenced several times in the petition.
So…can anyone explain the tree bank?
I’m not familiar with Decatur’s specifically, but a tree bank would refer to planting trees to mitigate the loss of removing trees due to development. The plantings would generally take place at another location that has few trees, and likely on public property or within public rights-of-ways.
thanks
I agree!
I want to have my death metal band practice until 3am any time I want to—as loud as I want to.
I want to burn stacks of tires in my backyard.
I want to park cars on cement blocks in my front yard and operate a shade tree mechanic business every weekend.
I want to be completely nude when I mow my lawn.
I want to keep 10 hens, 3 roosters, 6 goats, and a miniature pony in the backyard of my 1/16 acre lot.
It’s my property, I paid for it, and no one should be able to tell me what I can and can’t do on it!
You sure hacked those strawmen to bits. I hope you had a permit for that.
Of course I pushed to an absurd extreme, but on the continuum of personal and community rights we need to set some end points in order to set context for the need to strike a balance.
One of the remarkable things about Atlanta/Decatur is our tree canopy, and left solely to the discretion of individual choice, I seriously doubt we’d have what we collectively enjoy. Much of our canopy is the result of public policy that no doubt impinges on some personal liberties, but that’s part of the balance striking, and I personally support this.
Would I risk the safety and welfare of my family or a neighbor’s for the sake of a tree? No. In fact, were either family in imminent danger, I’d cut the tree down and face the consequences, and several years ago did just that with a large oak in my front yard.
I like AHID’s thinking from her 12:20 pm post.
One small, though not unimportant quibble: “Much of our canopy is the result of public policy…” should read “Much of our canopy is preserved through public policy…”. Public policy was not responsible for Atlanta’s canopy. That honor is largely reserved for those who bought new homes in Atlanta’s expanding neighborhoods and planted trees; for builders who worked around existing trees because it gave their homes a marketing advantage; and for individual homeowners along the way who’ve since planted additional trees on their property. Policy didn’t really enter the picture until the canopy was aging and we could no longer count on its ongoing replenishment being approached as an important act of civic participation.
Fair point. And, re: the drivers for our canopy, I’d add ” . . . and thanks to the work, vision, and advocacy of Trees Atlanta.”
Yes. Have you ever seen a picture of Decatur circa the 1920s? No trees- because the developers of these neighborhoods had cleared them. All of these beautiful mature trees around us are here because the developers planted them 90 years ago. And now, they are reaching the end of their lives.
Not sure it was developers who cleared the land initially. I’ll defer to those better versed in history if need be but I’ve always heard that much of Oakhurst was cleared long before being developed because it was grazing land.
yes I guess that could be true. I’ve always just assumed it was the developers but I guess the point that they were planted 90 years ago remains.
You shouldn’t assume and you should not assume “developer” as we know it now existed 90 years ago. You should also not assume just because a tree is 90-100 years old, it is reaching the end of its life.
Conservatives get the vapors when they’re asked to share the costs of public benefits.
When they demand that everyone else share the costs of their private benefits, however, they think that’s perfectly fine. I just don’t get the logic.
Your examples might be extreme, but negative externalities arise from public property usage. And, yes, cutting trees creates negative impacts that property owners expect us all to bear.
That being said, I still don’t know what a tree steward is. It makes me think of the Lorax.
Didn’t realize promoting property rights were a conservative thing. I guess that means liberals are anti-property rights?
And what are these “private benefit” costs of which you speak, and conservatives approve?
Asking the public to bear the cost of private actions is, in fact, very much a conservative thing. Not sure how that makes people on the left anti-property.
By the way, the on line petition linked above suggests that developers are not foisting these supposed costs onto the poor, hapless public. Per the petition, “[t]he developer who purchased 241 Melrose Ave plans on removing a beautiful healthy 100 year old white oak and paying the city a $9K fine.”
There you have it — $9,000 to cut down one tree, heading into public coffers. Not to mention that the new construction we’re talking about almost always results in higher property tax collections for the City. Just how large a ransom is really necessary for the act of development?
About that $9,000 fine … is something similar afoot with new builds that from appearance cover more than the maximum percentage of lot surface? Isn’t that 60% (not sure)? There are some Oakhurst constructions on small lots that with the mammoth house footprint, driveway and large garage must be over the limit and yet never is there a variance hearing sign posted. The lack of permeable surfaces is also a long term problem.
The allowable lot coverage is 40% impervious. And they never go over without a variance. CoD’s engineering department doesn’t cut anyone any slack since ever developer is watching everyone else to be sure nobody’s getting away with anything. If they did, they would be up in arms and it would cause a small riot.
If you look at any site plan in a permit box, they all list lot size, allowable coverage, and proposed coverage. They’re all are under 40%, and they are almost always under 4,058 sq ft, which is the magic number under which you’re not required to do water detention.
If a house looks big, it’s because the lot is much bigger than you think it is. Go open the box and look at the survey and the site plan.
And you can’t even file for a certificate of occupancy unless you have submitted an as built survey to the engineering department so they can verify you didn’t exceed your coverage.
Thanks!
One small addendum: Allowable coverage is 40% on a standardized lot. For particularly small substandard lots (which refers to dimensions, not quality), of which Decatur has a good number, there’s a sliding scale that allows coverage upwards to, I believe, close to 50%. This is something that occurs by-right and does not require a variance.
This clarifies better how R60 lots in Oakhurst, many of which are only 50 feet wide and not very deep, can have a massive build out.
50ft x 150ft is standard in Decatur, so your max is 40%. Developers pretty much avoid anything smaller since the floor area ratio(FAR) limits don’t make it worthwhile.
But the other way you can have more than 40% coverage is by using pervious concrete, or by using permeable pavers. The city counts pervious concrete as 60% of the sq ft it actually takes up, and permeable pavers at 50% of the sq ft it takes up.
And just to be nit-picky, they only let you use a particular paver, not just any paver.
I want to ask you an honest question, EJ, because you sound like a very knowledgeable person. Why do I need a certificate of occupancy? And what is the impact to me if I don’t get one?
No snark intended at all. I’m asking, because I have heard of several instances where a renovation was done, it didn’t pass inspection (on a small, ticky tac item), the contractor didn’t fix the ticky tac item, and the homeowner continued to live there, and later sell the property, without consequence.
So, what is a certificate of occpuancy for? Is it just the city’s stamp of approval that a job was done to code?
If it’s a renovation for a house you own and live in, you usually need to get a certificate of completion, because you already had a certificate of occupancy. It does seem like there isn’t a lot of follow up for open renovation building permits. There are however, no shortage of people who get caught adding impervious areas past their coverage limit and have to take them out. It’s the engineering department’s roving inspector that usually catches lot coverage issues, not the building department. The building department is now using a third party inspection company (SafeBuilt), and they only stop where requested to and really don’t pay attention to anything else.
For new houses though, most lenders won’t close a loan without a certificate of occupancy, and technically, the CoD has the authority to have GA power take the line down to the house if you don’t have a certificate of occupancy.
Thanks.
WIll you bear the costs of the benefits you receive from my private actions? Will you indemnify me for any damage caused by the tree which you prevented me from removing? Will you pay for my liability insurance? Will you care for the tree? And, god forbid, will bring a loved one back to life if that tree falls and crushes them? You can’t have it both ways. If you want the benefits, you have to contribute to the costs. Otherwise, I get to make decisions about risks on my property.
I also get to make decisions about aesthetics Or, can I make you repaint your house b/c the hideous color you chose is affecting my property values? Can I make you cut your grass or landscape your yard? Or, can I compel you to maintain your home and not let if fall into a state of disrepair?
There is no easy answer here, but the answer is not “I receive a benefit from something for which I don’t pay, and therefore you can’t do anything that removes that benefit”.
I don’t believe anyone is trying to keep sick or dying trees from being removed.
I hope you are right. But, I am opposed to any ordinance where a single city arborist gets to decide if a tree stays or go, and that very thing has been proposed. If I pay a professional arborist who advises me a tree is dangerous or if I have a reasonable fear that a tree poses a risk, I should be able to make the decision to take it down myself without delay.
That’s bull. The city should be able to tell you to take down a dying tree, even if your arborist tells you differently or you refuse to get an arborist. Who bears the brunt of it when your tree falls on my house and car? Me, your neighbor. Under GA law, I am solely responsible for the damage your tree causes my property. So yeah, I want a neutral entity that you did not hire to tell you to take it down. It impacts me and MY property rights and you are jeopardizing my RIGHTS as A PROPERTY OWNER if there is no one to force you to take down your dead tree (and yes, there is a neighboring dead tree affecting my property that recently cause $12,000 in damage to one of our cars and is threatening to fall on my kids’ bedroom. The neighbor does not want to take it down).
I think you confuse Republicans (and Democrats I might add) in Congress, with the conservative populace. A true economic conservative would ask no such thing. In fact, they would despise it.
Not sure about the “vapors” thing, but I do get a kick out of so-called progressives trying to cloak their authoritarian proposals in the garb of free-market economics — i.e., everything we don’t like is an externality that must be addressed by more regulation. This now includes the common act of clearing a tree to accomodate construction. The supposed externality here is almost purely aesthetic. Do you also want to be compensated when a neighbor paints her house a color you don’t like?
DEM, yes, there is an aesthetic component to this, but there’s also an economic component. To wit:
1. Houses with trees have more value than those without (don’t have my hands on studies to cite, but I’ve seen several in the past).
2. Your tree may shade my roof or windows. So your removing a tree could result in higher AC bills for me.
3. Trees do an amazing job of capturing stormwater, both on their leaves & within their root systems. We all pay a stormwater utility fee, and if we (to take an extreme example) clear-cut all the trees in Decatur, we’d have to spend a lot more on “grey” stormwater infrastructure. Not to mention the potential for local stormwater/flooding issues you might create for neighbors.
To me, the balance we need to strike in tree protection is fairly valuing these “services” that trees provide for the community. Then individuals can decide whether their economic self-interest is better served by keeping the tree or cutting it and compensating those harmed by the loss of the tree. This is, of course, also more easily said than done…
FWIW, the Environmental Sustainability Board will be discussing trees (specifically the tree study + potential ordinance updates) at our September meeting. 9/20 at 8 am in the Commission meeting room at City Hall.
No. 1. There are many decisions you make which may devalue my property. Do I have a say in all of those.
No. 2. Your lower AC bill may be costing me thousands in imminent foundation repair. Or, your lower AC bill may be costing me hours raking leaves instead of spending time with my famiy. Or, your lower AC bill may mean leaving a tree I deem dangerous instead of removing it. So, why does your AC bill trump my costs associated with the tree?
Good point about the raking. But if tree is shading your neighbor’s house, I’ll bet they are raking too. Plus cleaning their gutters. More bartering is in order as in “I will leave my tree up for your shade if you’ll clear the leaves biweekly and my gutters twice a year.” This will only work if non-handy people intersperse themselves evenly throughout the neighborhood so that they are surrounded by handy neighbors.
I like that. Individuals working it out!
DawgFan – take a deep breath & re-read my post. I think that YOU ought to be able to decide what YOU do with YOUR property. I also think that you ought to compensate anyone you harm in doing whatever you do with your property. This is the balance I spoke of (and, again, it’s no simple thing to find).
“I also think that you ought to compensate anyone you harm in doing whatever you do with your property”
I read your post perfectly fine the first time, and I think you are flat out wrong. You are creating property rights where none currently exist. In doing so, you are infringing on existing, vested rights. Besides, where do you draw the line? If your aesthetic decisions unrelated to trees are affecting me property value, am I entitled to compensation? As a society, we have to accept the costs (and enjoy the benefits) of decisions made by our neighbors without some expectation or entitlement to compensation.
Let’s look at this from another way. You have enjoyed lower AC bills for years b/c of my tree. Should you be forced to compensate me? Or, perhaps we should just call it what it is – a wash. You came out ahead for decades and now you will be a little behind for the forseeable future.
Now we’re talking about finding the balance. And, yup, it’s tricky.
Re. aesthetic decisions, that’s a large part of what many HOAs do. Note that I don’t choose to live somewhere with an HOA…
I think you & DEM raise a good point about whether someone who benefits from someone else’s property ought to compensate them (as in the shade/AC example). Frankly, I’m not sure I want to get into splitting hairs that thin. But we could if we wanted to as a community. My original point was that there is an economic impact, not just an aesthetic one.
Outside of this specific petition, the big issue we have to grapple with as a community is an aging tree canopy & what we want the city to look like in 20-50-75 years. If (big “if”!) we can figure that out, we’ll need to come up with a “silver buckshot” solution – it ain’t just ordinances that will protect & replenish our trees. Hop on over to the ESB meeting on September 20 if you’d like to discuss further.
I don’t have the answer as it relates to any specific ordinance but I do know that if, 75 years from now, we want to be a strong community that enjoys and benefits from a healthy canopy, we should not be investing our time and energy now in divisive efforts to prop up trees at the tail end of their lives. Instead, we should be planting trees with reckless abandon and continuing to do so as our ongoing standard operating behavior. Then, the loss of any one tree might be a drag but it will likely not constitute a meaningful environmental problem.
Frankly, I’m not sure I want to get into splitting hairs that thin. But we could if we wanted to as a community. My original point was that there is an economic impact, not just an aesthetic one.
_________________________
I guess we all want to draw the line just above the point where it starts to cost us money personally. Indeed, I wonder why the petitioners don’t pool their money to buy restrictive covenants protecting the trees they want to save, and whose removal would “cost” the community so much. If that were so, the community would come out ahead by paying property owners to save the trees. Often, it’s a lot easier to enlist the power of government to impose costs and burdens on others than it is to open one’s own wallet. Money talks, as they say.
In the end, I can’t disagree that there might be some trifling econcomic impact whatever it is this petition is trying to preserve. I stress trifling. Overwhelmingly, I stick to my opinion that this is almost purely aesthetic.
“Your tree may shade my roof or windows. So your removing a tree could result in higher AC bills for me.”
Maybe. But your AC bill is, to a much greater extent than shade, a function of your thermostat setting. The adjoining property owner might well ask you, in response to a request for compensation, why don’t you just hike the thermostat to 75 (or whatever) and that will keep your AC bill constant? Why do you get to decide your own thermostat setting if I am to pay a portion of the costs? It seems to me that your compensation request gives the neighbor the right to nose around in your business like that. Is that really what anyone wants?
Moreover, have you been a free rider on the shade, so long as it has existed? I can only imagine the look on a neighbor’s face if I were to say, my tree has been shading your home and reducing your AC bill. The tree therefore provides you with benefits but I am bearing 100% of the cost of ownership. Please remit $10 a month to pay your fair share.
hmmm, I’m still not sure where I stand on the balance of tree protection and property rights to build within the allowable building footprint (note I didn’t say ANY property rights), but the idea that tree removal is “almost purely aesthetic” is lacking in some consideration. Trees have an important role in the quality of our heath, and in particular the health of all the little rugrats currently around. Trees impact air quality, for one. Since our Atlanta air is filthy due to a combination of geography and polluntants near & far, anything that improves the quality of our air deserves more than being categorized as aesthetic.
When a developer clear cuts a lot, and, as a result, the person across the street has a flooded basement, I’ll be sure to tell them that their problem is purely aesthetic.
Read the petition. We’re not talking about clear-cutting here, which, under existing ordinances, is likely to be cost prohibitive if allowable at all. This petition seeks to micro-mange tree removal to the point of absurdity. It is clearly premised on aesthetic concerns.
Wow, I did just read the petition. It does not do what the summary above says it does. In my opinion, it goes far beyond protecting the public interest.
DEM, you need to really educate yourself on the value of a tree canopy to the environment before you speak on the subject.
Exactly.
Very good analogies, Rick. Well done.
I try my best
All hyperbole aside, there is undoubtedly a need for reasonable regulations. But, prohibiting someone from performing an otherwise legal act (in this case, building within the setback lines) b/c of the presence of a tree is unreasonable. Cutting a tree down to build a home on your property is entirely appropriate.
+1 DawgFan.
The current regulation provides appropriate consequences if a tree has to be removed – a fine and requirement to plant additional trees to replenish the canopy. Reading the regulation, I’m not clear how the fine is defined – apparently it is a variable rate depending on tree size.
From the petition, it sounds like the fine for removing the large Oak tree on Melrose will be $9,000. Given the cost of removing that size tree is likely an additional $10,000, I think this provides a healthy economic impact of indiscriminate tree destruction.
For that Melrose property, I don’t think it is reasonable to force the property owner to retain a massive tree in the middle of the buildable area of the property. I much prefer the code as written, requiring the developer to plant two new trees on the property to replenish the canopy.
I like that our current regulation does not restrict a homeowner from managing the canopy on their own property. A valid argument can be made that we should prevent developers to circumvent the regulation by making a property sale contingent on tree removal prior to close.
In this particular case, there already is a perfectly good home on the property. It just doesn’t happen to be a home from which the developer (not the eventual homeowner/occupant, mind you) can evidently make enough of a profit.
“perfectly good home”. That is your opinion. And thanks for confirming the motivatoin behind this is to prevent someone from maknig a profit. Did you even notice your counter-“argurment” as to why we should protect the trees didn’t even include the word “tree”?
Thank you for the correction:
In this particular case, there already is a perfectly good home (and tree) on the property. It just doesn’t happen to be a home from which the developer (not the eventual homeowner/occupant, mind you) can evidently make enough of a profit.
I guess it is too bad that the perfectly good tree will soon be a perfecty good pile of wood chips. Maybe you can ask the tree removal company to drop the pile in your yard so you can have some perfectly good mulch. All at the perfectly good price of free.
+1 for being a dawg fan.
I just googled it. I’d never buy that house as is.
But that’s just me.
I’m guessing the developer will build this home and it will sit empty for years. But on the ooooffff chance it doesn’t, you suppose it’s because someone is looking to buy a new home in Decatur? Giving people what they want and making a profit doing it……….unconscionable!!
The topic of architectural covenants (or the lack thereof) is closely related to this discussion and has many of the same mechanics:
At one extreme: It’s my land and I can build any style/size home I wish.
vs.
On the other extreme: Every home is historically significant and deserves protection in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
About 7(?) years ago we had this debate re: Oakhurst becoming a designated historic district. It was eventually tabled, but was very contentious while it lasted, and many relationships have never fully recovered from the lines drawn by the competing interests.
I found myself split on the topic, but generally landed at: Some homes are architecturally significant and should be protected for the sake of neighborhood character, while other homes that don’t possess the same character shouldn’t be afforded the same protection, and any new construction that would replace them should align with the overall character and size of the protected homes.
Tough and complicated language to craft, but left unaddressed or to developer discretion, we’re going to end up replacing our current charm with Franken-McMansion charm, and that would be a net loss for me.
I would not like it either.
My ideal tree ordinance would recognize both the benefit and value of healthy trees and the danger of trees that pose a risk to occupants, neighbors, property, and roads. It would also recognize that the average homeowner cannot easily judge the risk of a tree on their property. So it would provide a city arborist to inspect properties either on a routine or by request basis. I wouldn’t mind a city service that removed dangerous trees but I doubt that would fit in our budget. Alternatively, maybe the city could get a decent negotiated rate from a reputable tree removal firm that residents could opt to use for trees that have been declared as risky by the arborist.
Specific to the removal of dangerous trees, if a homeowner doesn’t have the necessary funds to pay for a professional service, their only recourse is to leave it standing. I had a 90+ year old dead oak and made several calls to seek assistance with its removal:
I called GA Power and suggested they help me or else run the risk of their power lines being destroyed once it fell. No dice.
I called my insurance company and suggested it would be far cheaper for them to help me with removal rather than paying a claim that could be very expensive—especially if personal injury were involved. No dice.
So, I plunked down the entire $4K to have it removed.
Having some community mechanism to assist those without those same resources would be something I’d support—the danger doesn’t disappear in the absence of money.
Yup, the expense of tree removal puts a lot of folks into denial. And it’s not like you can take out a loan for it, like when you buy a car or fix up your bathroom with a home equity loan.
“I called my insurance company and suggested it would be far cheaper for them to help me with removal rather than paying a claim that could be very expensive—especially if personal injury were involved. No dice.”
LOL! They were more likely to jack up your rate in view of your admission that the risks of a claim were higher than when they underwrote the policy!
or deny your inevitable claim citing negligence.
The tree died subsequent to the initial policy being written, but no doubt there’s mouseprint about disposing of a hazard once it becomes known to the homeowner.
Anyway, can’t blame a brutha for askin.
Boy, I’m sure surprised about how this discussion has gone down.
Do I detect irony?
You know this board well enough… I could have scripted this exchange and some of the participants yesterday!
Let me state for the record that I am a resident on Melrose Avenue, home of the tree requiring stewardship. While I have no issue with prospective amendments to our ordinances to protect our tree canopy in a reasonable fashion, I do not support the petition. The fact is that the developer is purchasing the property, has made arrangements with the city (previously cited $9k fine) and already has the to be built house under contract. I believe that the movement here is more anti-development than anything, but I am happy to see this development as it will be a major improvement on the street. I only say this to point out that petitions and movements like this might make it seem like much of Lenox Place supports this movement, but I would wager that just as many if not more are happy about the prospective new home but just don’t have a petition to demonstrate their sentiment.
While I don’t presume to know the motives of the petitioners beyond what they stated, I fundamentally agree that it is not reasonable to try to change an ordinance to impact a pending approved transaction.
I still want to know what a tree steward is. I may be in need of one.
I have a wayward shrub near my home. I think it’s fairly young, but I don’t like the decisions it has been making lately. Most worrisome is the band of hornets it has allowed to nest within its branches.
{sigh}
Shrubs these days…
You may want to put a call in to Treebeard @ Mirkwood Forest. He knows all the stewards. But do not expect a hasty call back!
I will send a messenger bird. He is insistent.
Treabeard lives @fangorn.me
the @mirkwood.me domain has been squatted on by the necromance and the spiders.
Many people seem to think this is an either or situation. It isn’t. Whether a developer has the financial incentive to cut down a tree will not change whether a house get’s built, renovated, sold, etc. There’s money to be made and they’d simply work around the trees. They aren’t building
because Decatur is cheap, far from it. It’s because it’s desirable.
That’s usually not the case. Developers are bottom line thinkers, and they aren’t about to spend $4-$8K on tree removal if they don’t have to, especially when mature trees on a lot are usually very appealing for prospective buyers.
Tree save areas are delineated by the canopy drip line, which in almost all cases in CoD infill lots, means you don’t have room to build anything that makes sense to try and sell keeping all existing trees.
Despite all the romantic notions of charming 3/2 bungalows, very few can afford to build,buy, (or get financing for), nor do they want, a brand new $550K 1,500 sqft home.
The city is about to undertake a unified land development plan that will encompass everything we do regarding citywide development. How we manage wastewater, trees, water retention vs. detention and a whole lot more. All city departments are involved and all the appointed boards have given comments and wish lists over the past year. The RFPs are due from the consultants in two weeks and a citywide comment period like the stragetic plan will be a part of it. Speak up about what matters to you when that process starts. Since I have been part of the tree discussion for some time as a member of the ZBA, I will tell you that this issue is very important to the city. The $9000 referenced here for the tree wouldn’t even go to the tree bank if there hadn’t been a patch to the ordinance earlier this year.
If you want to see what residents and the commissioners said about the petition at the commission mtg, here’s how you get there…
http://decaturga.swagit.com/play/08052013-836
Residents- click IV. Commissioners-click V (at 12:30 mark)
Cover blown, but hopefully we’re safe 2600 miles away :). It was our tree, and our house, for many years. And for decades before that in the family. We loved having it in the yard. I sat on the stoop out back and watched the squirrels dart around every day. However, when we decided it was time to update the house for our health’s sake, it was a serious issue that quickly became cost-prohibitive. It’s not fair to sit on the sidelines and say “it’s a perfectly fine house”, because it wasn’t. It needed major repairs, and as 2 people on 1 income it wasn’t feasible financially to meet the city’s requirements for protecting the root system while having heavy equipment on the property.
Now, this isn’t why we decided to leave Decatur, of course. That was a much more complex decision full of cumbersome, adulty-type decisions, but we did decide to move on.
I respect the city’s stance on replacement trees, and fines for removing it. I think they provide good balance to a situation that involves lots of variables. I am glad for the neighborhood to get a great new home, and new trees. Life moves on, things change, and lucky for Decatur, it typically happens thoughtfully there.
All very interesting comments. My take:
1. Twenty five petition signers admitted not living in the City of Decatur. How many of the other signers do not live in the city (have a Decatur mailing address only), are not property owners, or children we may never know.
2. On this issue, I am DawgFan’s like Número Uno Fan!
3. A new tree ordinance based on the petition, like the upcoming school tax referendum (most likely to pass if approved by the commission) would make it even more difficult for older homeowners to continue to live in the city.
4. New banner for some houses, snake coiled around a tree with the expression, “Don’t Tread On My Tree Damnit (I am told by a local authority that adding the last word provides additional emphasis.
5. We don’t need another law that increases the power of government. What we need is more individuals planting more trees on both private and public property. I mean, can’t we have a festival that combines tree planting and beer drinking?
We want to you to be healthy, and were very sad to see you go.
It’s a pity the city did not work more with you on your requests for variances and that the only financially viable option left is to level the lot. I wish the developer or homeowner could have better incentives to try and keep these trees on the properties. That is really what we are after.
It is one of our most stunning trees on our street and has 100 years left in it’s life span. I love the requirement to plant replacement trees to but it will be another 100 before they provide the benefits and beauty that the white oak does.
Are you kidding? You aren’t after incentives to keep trees. Have you even read your petition? Everything you ask for is punitive in nature and designed solely to hit home builders’ wallets. The only thing you seek is stopping development and trying to prevent home builders from making a profit providing homes the market demands. Trees are your (latest) tactic.
Deborah, I am going to have to agree with Dawgfan here. That petition is awful. Just plain awful.
I assume you are trolling – only reasonable explanation. Good job, you certainly got a great reaction from the audience.
“It is one of our most stunning trees on our street and has 100 years left in it’s life span.”
That is extraordinarily unlikely. Although there’s no shortage of white oaks that live hundreds of years, the overwhelming majority of them do it in much more suburban and rural areas, not in dense urban locations like Decatur where they can’t develop sprawling root systems.
Like it or not, urban trees generally have life spans in the 75-100 year range, and Decatur’s tree canopy is going to change dramatically in the next 20 years even if you got the city to pass an ordinance that outright bans the cutting of any mature trees.
Time, money, regulations and incentives would be much better spent on efforts to promote new plantings with species and specimens that have adapted to or thrive in urban environments rather than desperately trying to save a canopy that’s not going to be around for long no matter what you try to do.
I’m completely in support of trying to maintain great old trees, and fully support the recent ordinance changes that closed the backdoor to developers getting around paying into the tree bank. I also like that the tree ordinance has a high tree replacement factor for removed trees. Your petition however isn’t going to stuff Decatur’s existing canopy into some magic unchanging time capsule, and it certainly doesn’t address how to replace the canopy that’s not going to be here for long.
Hi,
We’ve been looking at the comments and want to make the petition work for the majority of people. You’re right DawgFan, the tone of the petition is anti-development which is not the message we intended. We will take another look at our wording.
The intention is to push for options and incentives for builders to consider plans that do not include removing large healthy trees that are within the buildable area of the lot. For healthy trees that are currently protected by the tree ordinance, or within the non-buildable area of the lot, like trees located close to the street or in between you and your neighbors property, we wanted to see some sort of accountability or stronger tree protection. We want to try and maintain the healthy mature trees that we have.
If you have suggestions to make the petition better or have constructive criticism, please e-mail them to .
Deborah, just my two cents, but those trees in buildable areas are coming down. Although extremely unlikely, you might be able to get some ordiance passed which prevents cutting them at this point or imposes huge fines, but given the age of those trees, mother nature will take its course in the next 10 or 20 years. IF your goal is the long term health of the canopy, your efforts should be directed at replacing, replanting and planting additional trees. At the same time, you have to be realistic about future development and not make cost prohibitive demands as you are going to get very little support. If you prevent those trees from being cut, there may be a point where much of our canopy is gone because noone was required to replant, and it will be the result of [your] short-sightedness.
One more thing, I don’t think anyone wants a tree ordinance dealing with specific, individual trees. That is an unaccpetable intrusion and way too much micro managing. Any amendment to the ordinance needs to apply equally to all properties.
how about ordinances dealing with specific individual trees, but only applicable to specific individuals?
joking aside, yeah, if you want a healthy canopy long term, plant trees now. you don’t maintain a healthy population by keeping old people alive longer, you need kids, constantly.
Gee, as I age, I vote for doing both. Let’s keep the old folks healthy and living longer and add a reasonable number of healthy young folks with the opportunity for good education, good jobs, decent housing, good healthcare.
Kathie Gannon signed the petition. Shocking. And I am really sad that 117 (currently) neighbors (mostly) have signed this dreadful garbage.
I also noticed that Kathie signed it. Does she plan to run for re-electoin or is she indirectly announcing her retirement?
50ft x 150ft is standard in Decatur, so your max is 40%. Developers pretty much avoid anything smaller since the floor area ratio(FAR) limits don’t make it worthwhile.