New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> To: JACOBSON Jerry P <br /> Cc: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Subject: tree preservation ordinance -- "approved development plan" <br /> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 1:40PM <br /> Jerry, <br /> You may be aware that there is a pending proposal to amend the tree preservation ordinance, currently found at <br /> Code sections 6.300 - .330. Under the proposal, street tree preservation would be moved to chapter 7, and the <br /> provisions in chapter 6 would apply only to private property. For private property, instead of a permit procedure, <br /> owners would be prohibited from cutting more than 5 trees in a year on undeveloped parcels over 20,000 square <br /> feet and from cutting any trees on undeveloped parcels less than 20,000 sq feet. "Undeveloped parcel" means a <br /> lot having neither existing dwelling or commercial structure nor approval for one. The restrictions on tree felling <br /> will need an exemption for felling that has been approved somewhere in the planning process. Were seeking your <br /> advivce on how to define the exemption. <br /> The first draft of the revised rules provided an exception when "the tree felling is the minimum necessary for <br /> implementation of an approved development plan." That raised the question of how to define "approved <br /> development plan." In addition. when Johnny met with the Homebuilders, they objected to "minimum necessary"; <br /> Johnny and I discussed substituting "consistent with for "minimum necessary for implementation of ". The <br /> problem with that approach, I think, is that nearly anything may be "consistent with" a development plan -- i.e., the <br /> developer could cut all trees that weren't specifically marked for retention in the plan. <br /> In order to resolve both problems, Glenn and I came up with the following version of the exception (which <br /> Johnny has not seen until now): the restrictions on tree felling would not apply when ... "the tree felling has been <br /> specifically authorized by a final planned unit development approval, a tentative subdivision approval, a <br /> conditional use permit, or a building permit." <br /> Questions: Johnny, does that general approach do what you want? (I.e. prevent or allow tree felling in roughly <br /> the right balance) Jerry, does the list cover the various situations in which the planning /permitting process would <br /> present an opportunity to review plans for tree felling? In other words, does the list work as a definition of <br /> "approved development plan "? Or (to both of you) does this take us too close to the permit system were trying to <br /> get away from because it requires too much in the way of staff resources? <br /> Johnny, we've drafted all the other changes to the ordinance. I want to nail this part down pretty precisely, <br /> though, because I think it will make a big difference in practice. <br /> Please let me know what you think. If we need to meet or set up a conference call, my schedule is pretty <br /> open this week. Thanks much. <br /> Page 1 <br />