AGENDA #4c
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director |
|
|
Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
|
Curtis Brooks, Urban Forester |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Response to Petition Regarding Proposed Changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance |
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
February 12, 2007 |
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a response to the attached petition from the Planning Board regarding proposed changes to the Town’s tree protection regulations. The petition recommended a two-phased approach to changing the basic framework of the current tree protection ordinance. This two-phased approach would involve a first step intended to provide some immediate expansion of today’s tree protection regulations while more substantive changes are being developed.
Adoption of the attached resolution would initiate the two-phased approach that has been recommended by the Planning Board by:
At the Council’s Planning Retreat in January 2006, the Council endorsed a goal regarding expansion of the Town’s tree protection regulations.
On January 8, 2007, the Council received a petition from the Planning Board regarding proposed changes to the Town’s tree protection regulations. The petition was received and referred to the staff.
The Town Charter authorizes the Town to enact tree protection regulations (Attachment 1 provides an excerpt from the Town Charter).
Today’s Tree Protection Ordinance requires that Landscape Protection Plans be submitted for most development. This requirement applies to existing single-family/two-family homes where land disturbance exceeds 5,000 square feet and a building permit is requested.
A Landscape Protection Plan must be approved before any tree can be removed or disturbed on developing land, including single-family homes with land disturbance over 5,000 square feet when a building permit is being requested. Landscape Protection Plans must show all proposed grading and improvements, including walkways and utilities, in addition to all trees 18 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh) within 50 feet of the proposed limits of construction. The plan further indicates critical root zones of trees surveyed, noting which trees are to be removed, and where fencing will be installed to protect the root zones of trees to be retained.
Review of Landscape Protection Plans required by the Tree Protection Ordinance provides an opportunity for discussion between the applicant and Town staff, advisory boards, and/or the Town Council about the effects of proposed grading and construction on the existing trees.
The Planning Board proposal involves a substantial change to the basic framework of the current Tree Protection Ordinance. The Planning Board recommended establishment of a new vision statement which would call for no net loss of trees/canopy cover and an increase in trees proportional to population growth to achieve the Council’s goal to expand the tree protection regulations.
Because the changes recommended are substantial and it will require some time and additional resources to amend the ordinance (including hiring a consultant with expertise in specialized tree ordinances), the Planning Board recommended interim adjustment to the existing regulations.
Interim Measures:
This two-phased approach would involve a first step intended to provide some immediate expansion of today’s tree protection regulations while the more substantive changes are being developed. The Planning Board noted that because development activity will continue to occur while the new approach to tree regulation is being crafted, the community would benefit from these intermediate adjustments. This intermediate phase of increased tree protection would focus on two areas of the regulations:
Comprehensive Ordinance Revisions:
The establishment of a new Tree Ordinance, the primary objective of the Planning Board’s phased approach, would focus on a vision, principles and potential strategies, as provided below, which would guide the establishment of new regulations requiring the preservation of trees. The vision is for no net loss of trees, with a general increase proportional to population growth.
The recommended justification for the proposed ordinance is linked to a Town-wide commitment to sustainability, with potential to reduce carbon emissions and decrease the urban “heat-island” effect for the following reasons:
The vision statement and justification noted above, and endorsed by the Planning Board, is from the DeKalb County, Georgia Ordinance.
Research was conducted by Planning Board members and Town staff on city and county regulations, across the nation, which have implemented tree ordinances which regulate individual tree removal on existing single- and two-family lots, including Atlanta, Hilton Head, and Myrtle Beach. Elements of these ordinances have been incorporated into this proposal by the Planning Board. Attached we provide a copy of the Atlanta (Fulton County) ordinance, whose approach for tree replacement and payment-in-lieu for trees removed on single- and two-family lots was endorsed by the Planning Board, along with the following principles and strategies:
When the Council received the Planning Board’s petition on January 8, 2007, Council members raised two questions related to 1) the possible effect the proposed Ordinance changes would have on existing single-family homeowners, and 2) the possible staffing implications associated with the proposed changes.
We believe that it is difficult to fully evaluate these questions without further study and believe that if a consultant is hired to consider Ordinance revisions, providing answers to these questions will be a fundamental component of the consultant’s scope of work. In general, we believe that the effects on single-family homeowners, as well as the staffing implications of the interim measures proposed by the Planning Board are likely to be relatively modest, while the effects of adopting the more comprehensive Ordinance revisions proposed for additional study will likely be more substantial. The following provides a preliminary staff evaluation of these issues.
Interim Measures:
If tree protection regulations are decoupled from the building permit process and Zoning Compliance Permits are required of homeowners prior to clearing sections of their property greater than a certain size, we anticipate that some single-family homeowners will be affected. If the clearing threshold is retained at 5,000 sq.ft., or approximately 1/8 of an acre, we believe that relatively few homeowners will be affected because it has been our experience that it is uncommon for homeowners in Chapel Hill to clear sections of this size on existing lots when they are not already considering other site changes that would necessitate a building permit. The interim measures, as proposed, would not regulate the removal of individual trees on single- and two-family properties.
Comprehensive Ordinance Revisions:
As currently proposed by the Planning Board, the removal of trees greater than a certain size on single-family and two-family lots will require receiving a permit. The details of the permitting process, the costs associated with permitting and/or required tree replacement, will depend on the exact language enacted as part of the Ordinance revisions.
Interim Measures:
As noted in the section above, we believe relatively few properties will likely be affected by the decoupling of the Town’s tree protection regulations from the Building Permit process if the threshold for clearing is retained at 5,000 sq. ft. Accordingly, this element of the proposed interim measures should not have extensive staff implications. We do anticipate, however, that there will be some impact on the staff in assuring that the public is educated about the new ordinance provisions and in following up on ordinance enforcement when there is uncertainty about the extent of tree work being done on individual properties. The proposed interim measure to decrease the size threshold for trees shown on Tree Protection Plans will likely increase the staff time needed to verify and review these plans, where they are required, but we believe this increase in workload should be modest.
Comprehensive Ordinance Revisions:
If the Ordinance is revised to include permitting requirements for removal of trees on single- and two-family lots, we believe the staffing implications will be significant. The exact implications will need considerable further study and will depend on the language adopted as part of these comprehensive revisions, but it appears likely that any regulation affecting individual trees on single- and two-family lots will require considerable staff time to monitor. Depending on the complexity of the ordinance revisions and their implementation requirements, we anticipate that there will be a need for additional Town staff with ordinance implementation abilities and expertise in evaluating trees.
Planning Board Recommendation: On January 2, 2007, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend the two phased approach for changes to the tree preservation regulations. The Planning Board recommended a substantial change to the basic framework of the existing tree protection regulations to reflect a vision of no net loss of trees, with a general increase in trees proportional to population growth. The Board believes the new approach will require the assistance of a tree ordinance specialist to develop the tree replacement policies and payments, to identify how monies generated by the program will be used, and to address the budgetary/staffing implications of the new regulations. During the period when new regulations are being developed, the Planning Board recommended interim changes that would strengthen/expand the present tree protection provisions.
A copy of the Planning Board petition is attached (Attachment 3).
Staff Recommendation: In accordance with the Council goal, we recommend that the Council consider the proposed two-phased approach for substantial changes to the tree protection regulations. We agree with the assessment of the Planning Board that the nature of the changes proposed will require assistance of a tree ordinance specialist to develop the tree replacement policies and payments, to identify how monies generated by the program will be used, and to address the budgetary implications of the new regulations.
We recommend that the Council adopt the attached Resolution to put the two-phased approach in motion. Adoption of the attached resolution would: