It's no wonder that many developers in Fayette County bulldoze every tree off a construction site before beginning work, county Planning Commission members learned last week.

The county's tree protection ordinance doesn't protect very many trees.

"They're totally not protecting any of the existing trees," Kirk Houser, county engineer, told the commission during a discussion of the tree ordinance in the group's monthly work session.

Current law requires that developers of commercial, office and industrial properties provide 70 caliper inches of trees (measured at breast height) per acre. Two trees, each with a 35-inch diameter, would meet the requirement, said Houser.

What's worse, he said, is that the ordinance allows developers to use their required natural buffers to satisfy the tree requirement. "Usually if they don't touch those buffers, there's many times enough trees to satisfy the ordinance, so they don't have to put any trees on the actual building site at all," he said.

The law also doesn't restrict tree cutting for residential construction, a fact that concerns Nora Khangure. Khangure attended the meeting on behalf of the Millpond Manor homeowners' association, and said the organization's members hope to see trees preserved in the as yet un-built sections of the neighborhood.

Another problem, said Houser, is that the ordinance gives no preference to saving existing trees over planting new ones, and many builders prefer to strip a site and plant new, young ornamental trees rather than saving the older native trees.

Some parts of the county, he joked, "should be renamed 'Bradford Pear City.' I want to encourage more native species," he said. "You could blindfold someone and drop them anywhere in the United States and there would be a Taco Bell and a bunch of Bradford pears, and they're not going to have any idea where they are."

Planning commissioners are examining the tree preservation ordinance at the request of the County Commission. Commission Chairman Harold Bost suggested the discussion after learning that the current law is about ten years old, and other commissioners unanimously agreed.

"I want to see if there's something we need to change or not change, to make sure we are in good shape based on today's standards, not yesterday's standards," said Bost.

"We're becoming a lot more environmentally aware today," he added.

Planning Commission Chairman Bob Harbison said last week the ordinance should be revised to provide incentives to entice developers to preserve existing trees. "If we can make it less expensive for them to keep existing trees, and more of them, they're going to do it," he said.

County attorney Bill McNally suggested the group also consider requiring commercial logging operations to maintain buffers along roads, but Houser said the state regulates logging, so county ordinances may take a back seat. The state legislature is considering its own statewide tree preservation ordinance, he said.

"That's great," said commission member Al Gilbert. "The state's fixing to impose a tree ordinance and then they exempt one of the worst offenders, in my opinion.

McNally and Houser will research the county's options for regulating loggers for a future discussion.

The group reached consensus that the law should be revised to require a tree survey as part of a developer's site plan review, and to require that more existing, native trees be preserved, not including buffers.

Also, members' heads were nodding in the affirmative as McNally suggested that residential requirements be added to the ordinance, and that individuals or builders on single lots should not be exempted.