A proposed new section for

Fayette's tree protection law will be plowed under and replanted over

the next couple of months.

Urged on by the County Commission,

the county's Planning Commission and engineering staff took aim several

months ago at people who strip their property of trees and then sell it

for development, thus getting around some of the provisions of the tree

protection ordinance. But county commissioners said last week that the

proposed changes missed the target, their bull's-eye falling instead on

some of Fayette's oldest families, land owners and farmers who have been

here for generations.

The ordinance requires that

some of the existing trees on a property be preserved when it is developed

for residential or commercial use. But if there are no trees there to

begin with, some developers have found, they can get around the law.

But requiring natural buffers

around the perimeter of a timbering site is not the way to solve that

problem, said land owners. About 30 land owners attended the commission

meeting to oppose the ordinance, many of them from families that have

held the land for generations.

"The effect of the ordinance

would be to reduce the value of specified trees to zero dollars,"

said Gerald Woolsey, who has about 125 acres planted in timber in south

Fayette.

The proposed 25-foot buffer,

land owners said, would prohibit them from harvesting acres of trees worth

thousands of dollars, and in many cases they planted the trees to start

with.

"If the county wants this

property in trees to beautify the county, then the county should [buy

the property]," said Woolsey.

Barbara Buckley said under

the proposed ordinance, the owner of land next to hers could legally remove

most of the trees and leave no buffer in order to build houses, "and

then I might want to cut my trees [for timber] and can't because these

neighbors enjoy looking at my trees. ..."

Dan Langford said his family

has owned acreage in Brooks for 150 years, at various times planting cotton

or raising cattle, and in the early '80s planted pine seedlings for later

harvest.

"Nobody to my knowledge

has complained, ever, about how my family has managed the farm,"

he said. "Now, 20 years into the timber business, the rules are being

changed on me [and] I can't cut the trees that I've planted."

The effect of the proposed

ordinance change, he said, might be to force longtime land owners to develop

their property.

Commissioners tabled any action

on the proposal until Oct. 25, and asked County Engineer Ron Salmons to

rewrite it taking into account the land owners' concerns.

While a tree ordinance is needed,

and a section devoted to timbering is also needed, the proposal "hits

the exact wrong group of people," said Commissioner Linda Wells.

She also asked the land owners

to make suggestions of ways the county could "put some controls on

developers" without unduly burdening legitimate timbering.

Back

to News Home Page |