More

trees need to be spared from developers'

bulldozers, members of the Fayette County

Planning Commission agree.

But

how to accomplish that is proving to be a

complicated question.

"I

wish we didn't have to have any ordinances when

it comes to individual property," said

commission Chairman Bob Harbison last week during

the group's third work session to discuss

revisions to the county tree preservation

ordinance. "But it's necessary."

Commission

member Al Gilbert questioned whether it really

is.

"I

have a problem as a citizen and a taxpayer having

to come up with ordinance after ordinance after

ordinance. There comes a time to say enough is

enough," he said.

But

Gilbert admitted the county needs to find ways to

prevent developers from completely clearing trees

from a piece of property before beginning

construction. And other commissioners pointed out

that proposals on the table are aimed at changes

to an existing ordinance, not creating a new one.

Tree

preservation came under scrutiny recently when

Harold Bost, chairman of the county Board of

Commissioners, questioned whether the county's

ordinance is strong enough.

The

governing body voted to direct the Planning

Commission to revisit the 20-year-old law to see

whether it could be changed to provide incentives

to keep developers from clear-cutting their

construction sites.

In

previous discussions, planners learned that the

current law requires that developments have only

70 caliper inches of tree per acre, and many

developers can easily satisfy that requirement by

counting trees in the undisturbed buffers

required between neighboring developments, so

that no trees at all need be planted or preserved

in the development proper.

County

engineer Kirk Houser put together some proposed

changes that would allow only half the

requirement to be met using trees in the buffer,

and setting up a system of "tree density

unit" measurements in which existing trees

would count twice as much as new ones in meeting

the requirements.

Developers

also would have to submit tree protection plans

as part of their development plans, showing where

all the existing "specimen" trees are

and stating the justification for removing any of

them. Specimen trees would be defined as

hardwoods 30 inches or more in diameter or

evergreens 24 inches or more.

Currently,

Houser said, developers aren't required to

justify bulldozing as many trees as they like.

"They could be taking out the mother of oaks

and we'd never know it," he said.

Then

it was Harbison's turn to wonder whether the

group was on the right track. The 70-caliper-inch

requirement could be met by retaining two large

trees per acre, he pointed out. "Is it

really better to retain those two old trees that

are nearing the end of their lives, or is it

better to plant a whole lot of new trees that

will grow?" he asked.

Commissioner

Jim Graw suggested that 70 caliper inches might

not be enough, and asked Houser to get copies of

ordinances in surrounding jurisdictions, in

addition to the ones he has already provided.

The

group decided they need more public input before

deciding which direction they want to take.

Ordinarily,

public hearings are conducted only after a

definitive proposal is hammered out, but

commissioners said they want to have at least one

public hearing before refining the ordinance any

further.

They'll

still have the customary hearings required by

state law before passing their ultimate proposals

on to the County Commission.

But

commissioners will discuss the matter again at

next month's work session before opening it up

for public comment, probably in September.

<!--

-----------