9_4_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12.4.24 Cy Stober: It's very difficult to enforce that narrow, that small of a DBH for us as staff. To get to Perdita's 985 earlier point of going out for the pine straw, for staff to go out and measure 1-foot DBH is a much 986 greater challenge than 2 feet because those are much more obvious. 987 988 Lamar Proctor: My concern on that is just doing some research as to DBH and different types of trees, the DBH 989 has to be factored in with the growth rate of the tree. But just for example, a red maple with a 990 DBH of a foot is a 37-year-old tree, so I mean my concern is, and I understand, now that I 991 understand the rationale that it's a time-intensive thing for staff, but I think raising that from 1 foot 992 to 2 feet, you're only preserving trees that are like 70 or 80 years old, and you're cutting down 993 trees that are 30 to 50 years old, depending on the tree. The trees have different growth rates, so 994 in terms of preserving native healthy trees that form an integral part of our ecosystem, I would 995 oppose increasing that to 24. I would keep it at 1 foot. Or somewhere in between. 996 997 Charity Kirk: Eighteen inches? 998 999 Lamar Proctor: I don't know how much time goes into measuring these things or evaluating in these buffer zones 1000 the tree sizes and all that. I mean, just sitting here thinking about it, it does seem a rather labor-1001 intensive process, but I don't know if you can give me some examples. 1002 1003 Cy Stober: I can. Other than anecdotes of staff of going out to sites and going, oof, okay. So that was the 1004 response, and this is a reactive amendment. It's again addressing the enforceability of the 1005 ordinance. But to get to look at the consistency with our comprehensive plan, to your point, Mr. 1006 Proctor, I could see why there would be other goals and objectives that are in that comp plan that 1007 would be underserved by reducing this. So, you're not going to hurt our feelings, but it is a 1008 formidable challenge to enforce the 1-foot DBH. 1009 1010 Charity Kirk: Would 18 inches be easier to enforce? 1011 1012 Cy Stober: Probably. Just either way we're going to have to get used to a new standard if we change it. 1013 There was not a scientific process to this. We did not do a lot of research on this. It sounds like 1014 Lamar has done more research than most of my staff, other than perhaps Patrick. 1015 1016 Lamar Proctor: Well, if y'all name a tree I can tell you how approximately, according to these calculations, how old 1017 it is based on 1 foot or a 2 foot. 1018 1019 Cy Stober: I will also add to this point, if it is a point of concern, while it is a difficult matter to enforce, it is not 1020 creating massive headaches for us as staff. It is not a formidable challenge; it is more about the 1021 clarity of what a 2-foot DBH tree is versus a 1 foot, and we can move forward in either way. 1022 1023 Chris Johnston: And to confirm, staff is doing this; it's not the applicant who then goes through and provides these 1024 numbers. Correct? 1025 1026 Cy Stober: In an ideal world, it would be the latter. It is more often than not the staff. 1027 1028 Chris Johnston: Sure. 1029 1030 Charity Kirk: Do staff mark the trees that can't be removed? 1031 1032 Cy Stober: So, we would if we have an enforcement matter or if we have a complaint or if we know of existing 1033 legacy trees, say, in a zoning matter, or special use matter, that have been identified on the site 1034 plan. We had one just recently that was a bizarre geometry and has a number of larger older 1035 trees on a commercial property with light warehousing, but the trees overhang all the warehouses. 1036 They're right on the property line, et cetera, et cetera. We did indeed go out onto the property and 1037 say, okay, they are there. We are good. And we moved on. And they were identified on the site 1038 plan, per the ordinance. And if you want credit for them, then you have to identify these, and we 1039