By DAVE HAMRICK
Staff Writer

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.