|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment-Modifications to the Tree Protection Regulations |
|
DATE: |
May 14, 2007 |
This Public Hearing has been called to consider a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow for an interim expansion of the Town’s current tree protection regulations. The attached Ordinance A would amend Section 5.7.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We recommend that the Council consider the attached draft ordinance (Attachment 1).
We have also provided a draft copy of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek consultants to guide the more substantive changes to the tree protection regulations proposed by the Planning Board. We anticipate that the RFP will be distributed in mid-May.
|
January 12, 2006 |
During the Council’s Planning Retreat, the Council agreed to give priority status to a proposal that would consider amending the Land Use Management Ordinance with respect to the protection of trees on private residential property. |
|
February 27, 2006 |
The Council adopted a schedule that recommended that the staff return in Spring 2006 with a proposed date for a Public Hearing on this subject. |
|
June 26, 2006 |
The Council adopted a resolution scheduling a Public Hearing for November 13, 2006, for the purpose of considering amending Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance provisions for protection of trees on private property and banning clear cutting. |
|
October 3 & 17, 2006 |
The Planning Board began discussion of possible changes to the tree protection regulations in order to forward a recommendation to the Town Council. On October 17, the Planning Board recommended that the Town Council reschedule the November 13, 2006 Public Hearing to February 19, 2007. The Board also formed a Committee to study the subject and return to the Planning Board with a recommendation. |
|
January 8, 2007 |
The Planning Board presented a petition to the Town Council. The petition recommended a two-phased approached to the tree regulations; 1) an interim expansion of current tree protection regulations; and 2) more substantive changes to the tree protection regulations (Attachment 3). |
|
February 12, 2007 |
The Council endorsed a Planning Board recommendation to consider a two-phased approach to changes to the current Tree Protection Ordinance. The two-phased approach to changes to the tree protection regulations included 1) A May 14, 2007 Public Hearing to consider an interim expansion of current tree protection regulations; and 2) Authorization of a Request for Proposals to seek consultants to guide the more substantive changes to the tree protection regulations. The Council also recommended that the staff return with a public awareness strategy program regarding proposed changes to the tree protection ordinance. |
|
March 26, 2007 |
The Council received a memorandum describing the staff’s public awareness strategy regarding the proposed changes to the tree protection ordinance. |
Land Use Management Ordinance: The current Tree Protection Ordinance requires that Landscape Protection Plans be submitted for most development. A Landscape Protection Plan must be approved before any tree can be removed or disturbed on developing land. This requirement applies to existing single-family/two-family homes where land disturbance exceeds 5,000 square feet and a building permit is 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 existing trees.
State Law Provisions Regarding Forestry: State law includes provisions regarding the practice of forestry as a land use. Chapel Hill’s regulations address this right to harvest trees with a forestry permit from the State (Section 5.7.3). A local permit is required for this type of forestry activity and we are typically able to preserve a perimeter landscape buffer around the clear cutting area. Under the State law, Chapel Hill’s regulations cannot prohibit this type of bona fide timber harvesting activity.
The Planning Board Tree Committee believed that an interim change to the tree protection regulations is needed immediately as a protective measure for the community. The justification for the proposed ordinance revision is linked to a Town wide commitment to sustainability, with potential to reduce carbon emissions and decrease the urban “heat-island” effect.
Single Family/Two Family Homes: Chapel Hill’s existing Tree Protection Ordinance requires residents to submit tree protection plans and tree surveys if they intend to remove trees as part of a building project (such as a house addition) that will affect 5,000 square feet or more of land. This requirement applies to existing single-family/two-family homes.
The proposed interim changes to the ordinance would require permits to remove trees in a cumulative area more than 5,000 square feet even if a building permit is not involved. In addition the minimum threshold size of trees that must be surveyed is proposed to be lowered. With the clearing threshold at 5,000 sq. ft., or approximately one-eighth 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.
Attachment 1 provides the proposed language.
Future Changes To Tree Protection Regulations: To develop new tree regulations, the Council has endorsed a two-phased approach – moderate restrictions in the short term, as described above, followed by more substantive changes in the future. The Council plans to hire a consultant with expertise in specialized tree ordinances to develop the more substantive changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance. A copy of the draft Request for Proposals is attached.
More comprehensive revisions for the future could include regulations that apply to all regulated land uses, including existing single-family and two-family residential regardless of the amount of clearing proposed; regulations that account for variation among species, particular to our region, climate, and eco-systems; and, regulations that include a permitting process for tree removal with financial disincentives for unauthorized tree removal.
Analysis of the amendment proposal is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance which states that the Ordinance shall not be amended except: a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; b) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or c) to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
A) An amendment is justified to correct a manifest error.
Comment: We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support or Opposition: We were unable to identify any arguments in support or opposition of a manifest error.
B) An amendment is justified because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: We are unable to identify any arguments in support of changed conditions.
Arguments in Opposition: We are not aware of changed conditions.
C) An amendment is justified to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: Arguments in support of this finding can be summarized as follows:
The justification for the proposed ordinance revision is linked to a Town wide commitment to protecting natural resources and a commitment to sustainability, with potential to reduce carbon emissions and decrease the urban “heat-island” effect.
Arguments in Opposition: No arguments in opposition have been submitted to date.
We believe the justification of the text amendment application is to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to protecting natural resources.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment on May 1, 2007. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the enactment of Ordinance A. The Board also recommended that the Council implement a public awareness campaign soon after the enactment of the ordinance in order to inform the community of the expanded tree protection issues. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council consider the attached Ordinance language (Attachment 1) which proposes phased adjustment to the tree protection regulations. The proposed interim changes to the ordinance would require a permit to remove trees in a cumulative area of more than 5,000 square feet even if a building permit is not involved. The interim change will also lower the threshold of trees that must be surveyed.
1. Draft Ordinance Language adjustments (p. 7).
2. Draft Request for Proposals for substantive changes to regulations (p. 12).
3. Planning Board Petition (January 8, 2007) (p. 16).
4. Summary of Planning Board Action (May 1, 2007) (p. 20).
5. Aerial Photo of square footage areas around Town Hall (p. 21).
