By DAVE HAMRICK
Staff Writer

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.