The Fayette County Board of Commissioners voted at its Oct. 7 meeting to approve a timber harvesting ordinance that all agreed was only the first of the county’s attempts to deal with massive tree cutting in some residential neighborhoods.
“This is not something that’s going to get done in two weeks’ time,” board Chairman Steve Brown said to the residents at the meeting who have been petitioning the board for several weeks to get something done. “Be patient. This is a good start.”
The new ordinance adds a number of requirements with which individuals and companies must comply before starting any tree cutting work. Those requirements include giving notice to the county in detail regarding the proposed work, and presenting a surety bond or letter of credit to the county’s public works department for protection in case of damage to public roads or should extra traffic management become necessary.
The issue was discussed extensively during the Sept. 25 meeting when a number of residents in the Gingercake Road area complained about neighbors cutting dozens or even hundreds of trees on their lots, causing water runoff problems as well as making the area less visibly attractive.
Reports of huge piles of debris in various yards were the norm, as companies came in promising to clean up after their work only to disappear once the tree cutting was done, the residents said.
County code enforcement has issued a number of citations throughout the process, but officials conceded at the September meeting that a stronger ordinance was needed to address some of these issues which at the time were not under the county’s jurisdiction.
County leaders met with officials from the Georgia Forestry Commission in advance of the Oct. 7 meeting in an attempt to be better prepared for what they needed to do.
“This is going to take a lot of the fly-by-night people out and make it easier for them to do business somewhere else,” said Brown, who again advised citizens to beware of any company asking to cut trees on their property that was not properly insured and bonded and avoid situations that could result in liability.
Several of the residents who came before the board in September returned to the podium at the latest meeting to ask commissioners to take care of the problem. One resident who apparently was the cause of some of her neighbors’ grief also spoke, saying she wished her neighbors had come to her sooner before reporting her to the county and perhaps some of the problems could have been avoided.
Code enforcement officer Kathy Hobbs gave the audience a primer on how the process has been working up to now regarding violations. She said the first thing she does when a call comes in is inform the violators what is being done wrong and give them time to correct the problem.
“The first part of our job is to educate the public on the ordinances,” she said. “Code enforcement is more about compliance than issuing citations. We would rather they use their money to clean up their property and make it as it should be than to spend it in court and on fines.”
Those who do not cooperate receive citations that can include substantial fines and even some jail time. As Hobbs and County Manager Steve Rapson pointed out, once a case is cited, it becomes a matter for the courts and must be dealt with there.
As several commissioners stated, there is another fundamental issue that must be considered as well.
“Our ability to go on someone’s property and do something is really limited because of property rights,” said Commissioner David Barlow.
Vice chairman Charles Oddo echoed that sentiment, saying that the county has to “balance both sides. You have to be careful about the line you step over just as much as the line you are trying to protect.”
Rapson said that his office will continue to look at ordinances in other counties and coordinate with environmental and code enforcement personnel in an attempt to strike a balance between private property rights and what the county needs to control. That will likely result in several options ultimately being presented to the board, he added.
Brown noted that there will likely be some public hearings before the matter is completely resolved, so that all voices in the county can be heard.
He pointed out that Peachtree City’s tree ordinance is quite strict, requiring a permit for cutting “anything over six caliper inches,” he said.
“If we took Peachtree City’s ordinance and embedded it in ours, there would be 1,000 people waiting to come into this room and take our heads off,” he said.
“We have to figure out the acceptable limit that citizens in the unincorporated county will tolerate. We need to be rational and reasonable. It can’t be all or nothing; it’s got to be somewhere in the middle.”
