New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
General Trees
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Street Trees.Urban Forestry
>
General Trees
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2014 1:41:58 PM
Creation date
7/9/2014 1:41:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
246
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: MCVEY Fred <br /> To: LEMMAN Phil M <br /> Cc: HAMMITT Bob; MEDLIN Johnny R; PLAMONDON Scott F; CHILDS Jan W <br /> Subject: RE: Tree bill <br /> Date: Friday, June 02, 1995 1:56PM <br /> Phil, the short answer is that we don't see huge problems for the City with the bill but have some <br /> concerns. The bill does conflict with our tree ordinance in that we prohibit clear cutting and the bill allows <br /> cutting of all trees planted, with certain qualifications. Its not clear if the bill would preempt local <br /> ordinances - if it does we'd have some concern about loss of local control, if it does not we'd have concern <br /> that the State forester would have to consider local ordinances prior to certification of a parcel as a "free <br /> to grow" stand of timber. We don't however think there are any 5 acre and larger parcels within the city <br /> limits that are likely to fall under the bills purview. There would likely be a few parcels within the UGB that <br /> could qualify and we apply our tree ordinances within the UGB. <br /> Another potential concern would be conflicts with wetland and natural resource setbacks and buffers. The <br /> bill provides some minimal protection of streams but does not consider wetlands and ponds, small streams, <br /> etc. If idle land adjacent to a wetland or pond were planted and certified, it seems the bill would allow <br /> harvest without consideration of buffers or setbacks, unless these were otherwise regulated (and if they <br /> were there would be conflicting regulations). <br /> That's our quick analysis. Hope it helps. <br /> Fred McVey <br /> From: HAMMITT Bob <br /> To: MCVEY Fred <br /> Subject: FW: Tree bill <br /> Date: Thursday, June 01, 1995 6:03AM <br /> Priority: High <br /> Please coordinate a response with Scott. Thanks Bob <br /> From: CHILDS Jan W <br /> To: HAMMITT Bob; MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Cc: LEMMAN Phil M <br /> Subject: FW: Tree bill <br /> Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 8:10PM <br /> Priority: High <br /> Is this a bill that you folks have reviewed. If yes, can you <br /> let Phil know if we care ? ?? <br /> From: LEMMAN Phil M <br /> To: CHILDS Jan W <br /> Subject: Tree bill <br /> Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 7:06PM <br /> Priority: High <br /> Can you take a quick look at SB 530 -A? This is the "if I <br /> plant a tree I can cut a tree" bill. Phil Fell has a request <br /> from the Gov's office to do a quick look before the Gov acts <br /> on it. <br /> Can you tell me whether it conflicts w/ our tree ordinance or <br /> whether we have any 5 -acre stands of timber in city limits <br /> (see (3)). <br /> Tx. PL <br /> Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.