To free up a significant amount of staff time, Peachtree City may drastically curtail its tree removal permitting process.
At the same time, council is facing some pressure to go the other direction and
enhance the oversight of residential tree removal, to the point of perhaps forbidding some trees from being removed from one’s own property.
The pros and cons were sorted out at a workshop session of the City Council and Planning Commission Tuesday night, but no final decision was reached.
Currently, city staff has to make two visits whenever a tree removal permit is filed, but the city has no power to keep a resident from removing any tree. Getting rid of that procedure will free up significant time for the city’s two municipal code enforcement officers, officials said.
Much of Tuesday’s discussion centered on whether the city needs to have that ability. Long-time resident Joan Houghton argued passionately in favor, given what happened about three years ago in her neighborhood on Hilltop Drive.
A family from Arizona bought a nearby home which had been on a heavily wooded lot, Houghton explained. They proceeded to take down some 38 trees, forever changing the landscape of the area, as the home was formerly hidden by the vast number of trees, she said.
The result was that Houghton had trees and other plants die in her yard because they were used to the shade from the neighbor’s trees but could not survive direct sunlight, she said.
“They had a permit, and they could do what they wanted,” Houghton said, noting that those neighbors soon decided to move, leaving her behind with a lot fewer trees in her neighborhood.
While some could argue the need for keeping as many trees as possible, particularly in a city as focused on aesthetics as Peachtree City, it might leave the city in a pickle liability-wise.
The city could potentially be held liable if it forbids a tree to be removed and later that same tree falls and causes any property damage, explained Community Development Director David Rast.
While some Georgia communities have aggressive tree saving measures written into their ordinances, they are usually hand-in-hand with the services of an arborist who is a city staff member or contracts with the city, Rast said.
Planning Commissioner Lynda Wojcik said she felt strongly that the city should go in that direction to protect trees in the city.
The catch is that doing so will assuredly require a fee to be paid for each tree removal permit in order to offset the cost of the arborist. Tree removal permits currently are free.
Resident Mary Giles suggested that the city see if it could use the services of an arborist at the local University of Georgia Extension Office, and that possibility will be looked into, officials said.
In the meantime, Councilman Eric Imker has proposed eliminating city staff direct oversight in the tree removal permit process, as city residents applying for such permits would be responsible for taking photos and verifying how many trees would be cut down, and listing their species on the permit.
No final decision was made, and city staff said they would check the regulations adopted in East Point. Planning Commissioner David Conner said he was told by a local tree cutting service that East Point had adopted some very restrictive tree removal rules, which were enforced by the police department to the point of arrest in at least one case.
