I found this interesting so cross posted it under the originators name
John Sanborn
-----------------------------------------------

To: TREETOWN@LSV.UKY.EDU

Hello all,

I am finishing up a tree preservation ordinance for Lexington, KY and
am preparing the defense on it. It will receive significant resistance
from local developers and we suspect more influence on our council
by developers than is visibly seen.

I need to get statistics on how many cities have tree preservation
ordinances, how many require minimum canopy retention levels and
what those levels are by zone, special treatment areas such as
riparian protection, how many cities use tree preservation plans as
requirements in the development review process. One thing I want to
impress on our council is how common tree ordinances are. Has
there been any study on looking at these ordinances nationally with
comprehensive statisitics?

If there are cities dealing with state right to farm and right to
silviculture laws I would love to hear from you as well.

Thank you all who sent me a copy of their tree ordinances. If you
haven't and would like to send one I would most appreciate it.

Here is a framework on our ordinance. Does it sound off the wall or
right on target with what is existing out there?

We are proposing a predevelopment 30% canopy retention for
residential, 25% business, and 10% industrial. Minimal
postdevelopment canopy must also equal those numbers. In areas
where predevelopment canopies do not meet minimal retention
levels, street tree and landscaping can make up the difference
according to a landscaping credit given at 100 sq ft per small tree,
300 per medium sized, and 800 ft per larger tree.

Special treatments occur in riparian and other environmentally
sensitive features which go along with Engineering guidelines.

The plan calls for a inventory to be done with preliminary
applications to get the developer on site and recommends
predevelopment on site meetings. A tree preservation plan is to be
submitted with the final development plan showing tree retention,
supplemental plantings, postdevelopment canopy cover, details on
tree protection and is to be accepted by the urban forester and
approved by the Planning Commission before certification.


David W. Swenk, CF
Urban Forester
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
Current Planning Section
200 E. Main St.
Lexington, KY 40507
(606)258-3286

Reply to post by David Swenk, on September 10, 1999 at 20:35:46:

One source that should be reference if not already is MD DNR. MGALVIN@DNR.STATE.MD.US
MD has a statewide requirement and should have a lot of experience data. Also talk to Debbie Bassert @ NAHB in Washington.

Are the canopy %s of total land area? While as an arborist I agree with the merit of preservation, as a working real estate professional I have to recognize that on some lots - particularly small residential - by the time you accomodate bldg footprint, driveway, drainage, septic systems (if applicable), slope stabilization, curb & sidewalk reqs and util ROWs fixed %s may not survive. Even if canopy %'s survive initially, if there is impact on roots under that canopy it may not survive long term. If the net effect is to make lots unbuildable simply to preserve trees particularly at entry $ point, then the public interest may not be served.

Even on larger developments regulations con conflict: e.g. the developer wants to preserve trees but the fire marshall insists on cul-de-sacs that accomodtae the turing radius of 110' tower ladder (I guess $1.2mil and they don't come with reverse?) to protect 1 story stick buit condos. Or 20 single families on a cul-de-sac which would be appealing, maarketable and functional as a country lane, but by the tiem engineering and DOT get done it's two lanes + on street parking width + hard curbs w/deep footings, storm drainage to TVA standards, extra wide sidewalks.

OK so we enforce street trees and replanting. Linear arrays in two foot tree lawns between curb and sidewalk. So we're in an industrial neighbor hood and pretty quickly those trees are whacked to death by tractor trailers scraping the branches. Or lots of trees in parking lot island of the office building, aren't they cute?

The point is ordinances need to accomodate creativity in tree preservation which requires creativity and flexibility in the entire regulatory picture. And not just on a site by site basis, but on a system wide basis. Off site mitigation or contribution under a master plan may be the best solution. Ordinaces need to have teeth but the best results will be from getting owners and developers on board with workable alternatives.