Saving

trees from the bulldozer is a laudable goal, say

local developers, but they also urge caution as

the Fayette County Planning Commission considers

tightening its tree preservation ordinance.

"The

whole idea is to make it better, and to make it

better you need input from all parts of the

community," developer Jeff Ellis told the

commission during a public hearing last week on

its proposed new tree preservation ordinance.

Ellis

suggested putting together a citizens' committee

made up of county experts, average citizens and

developers to "come up with a compromise

that's going to suit everybody in the long

run."

Commissioners

have been studying the county's tree preservation

law for several months at the request of the

County Commission. The 20-year-old ordinance

requires that developers preserve or replace some

trees on their developments, but the law provides

no incentive to save existing, larger trees

instead of replacing them with new, smaller

ornamental trees.

With

the guidance of county engineer Kirk Houser,

commissioners have hammered out a rough draft of

a new law that would increase the number of

inches of trees that would have to be preserved

or replaced on each acre of a development, and

would give twice as much weight to existing trees

as to new ones.

The

proposed law also would include residential

developments in the law, and require a tree

inventory and preservation plan for each planned

project. Also, at least half of the trees saved

would have to be outside any undisturbed buffer

that's already required in each development.

Requiring

that developers of residential neighborhoods file

tree inventories and preservation plans will be

costly, said Ellis, adding that subdivision

developers aren't leveling trees unnecessarily in

the first place.

"We

understand the value of trees," he said.

"We're not looking to see how many trees we

can knock down. It just goes against the

grain."

But

county engineer Houser said he has seen local

builders strip a neighborhood of trees, and when

questioned about the practice, "One

developer told me that it's easier to sell a lot

if the customer can see it," he said.

Darrell

McKinney, a resident who is not a developer, said

it's unfortunate that "good developers"

have to suffer for the sins of the few.

"Most of the developers are concerned with

trees," he said, "but I can show you

examples of some who are not.

"I'm

not for big government, and I'm not for more

government," McKinney added, "but this

is one area where Fayette County has lagged

behind."

He

agreed with Ellis that a study committee would be

a good idea.

Developer

Bob Barnard questioned whether the county

government will be bound by the tree preservation

ordinance on its construction projects. "It

seems like it's more of a penalty the way it's

designed," he said.

Another

developer, Buford Chandler, complained that the

ordinance would force developers to go to all

kinds of trouble to save trees, but then the

homeowner might decide to cut down the same trees

once the sale goes through.

"We

can save it, and the homeowner 30 days later can

take it down," he said.

Houser

said saving the trees from the developers

bulldozer would prevent most of them from being

cut. "That's going to be pretty expensive

for the average homeowner," he said.

Julian

Lee Jr., who hopes to develop his commercial

property along Ga. Highway 85, said tree

preservation, added to recently enacted special

standards for the highway corridor, would make it

difficult for a developer to make a decent

profit.

"In

the corridors, where the net usable property has

already been reduced by large setbacks and

buffers," he said, "what this says to

me is that we're going to increase those

non-buildable areas by 50 caliper inches per

acre."

Local

business owner Paul Oddo urged commissioners to

consider the philosophical implications of

passing strict tree preservation laws.

"While I don't believe in destroying trees

without purpose, I also believe that trees are

private property," Oddo said.

If

the county wants to save trees, he said, the

county should buy some acreage and set it aside

as a tree-save area.

Commissioners

will consider the comments expressed in last

week's hearing at their work session Oct. 21. A

work session is scheduled for Sept. 16, but two

commissioners will be absent.

<!--

-----------