Lisa Scheer took this pic recently off US 70 near McLeansville.

Comments

[triadwatch]

Just love those developers and their clear cutting communities.now we see trebic also wants to not have a tree ordinance. Maybe lisa can get a better shot of some of the clear cutting communities that our developers always do.

[mick]

Balancing regs/ordinances with affordable housing and scrub pines can be difficult at times.

[Steve Harrison]

Scrub pines are people too, Mick.

[David Wharton]

I've been involved in lots of discussion about this issue with the development community and also with city staff.

Maintaining existing trees in greenfield development is a difficult and often losing game. If the trees have grown up in groups, it's pretty much impossible to retain individual trees, and if you do their canopy is usually thin and lopsided, and they often don't survive. Even in the 19th century, landscaping books advised people to remove existing "volunteer" trees and replant hardier species.

Maintaining thickets of tree buffers along the edges of developments works a lot better -- and you can see in the photo that this developer has done that.

From the looks of the photo, it seems like this development rose out of a pasture or hay field. So you can blame farmers for cutting the trees.

[glenwoodobserver]

Yet, maintaining existing trees in greenfield is done all the time and is a fundamental design exercise for any student of site planning (civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture.) True, existing trees may not be in good shape because the stands are often not thinned and so by cutting a few on the perimeter, you are exposing rail thin trees that won't withstand a good breeze. So, I would disagree that just because it is difficult does not mean it can't be done.

Of course, opponents of the 1-tree rule in the LDO cite the cost of planting a tree and the uneforceability of the ordinance. We have a whole code of ordinances that are "unenforceable". We don't have abandoned car police, overgrown lot police, etc, but these are effective ordinances and are "policed" by every day citizens.

If the issue was the minimal cost one tree adds to affordable housing developments (how many permits for affordable housing were issued last year anyways..), the developers would be better off not planting grass - much more costly to buy, install and maintain, than a single tree.

[Roch101]

"Even in the 19th century, landscaping books advised people to remove existing "volunteer" trees and replant hardier species." -- DW

David, the clinic called, your leeches are ready.

[beelzebubba]

developers are required to clearcut. roots can grow into infastrucutre...curbs and gutters, electrical lines, plumbing lines, sewerlines, footings and foundations months, years after the developer is gone. when the homeowners plant their own lightning rod/concrete heaving poplars they assume the risk as a proud owner of an over appraised property which can only go up in value. Washington wrote in his notes that as a surveyor in the 18th century that he could see from Yorktown to Williamsburg with no interruption from a tree. would he lie?

[David Wharton]

Well, Roch, my point was that some tree removal was recommended by landscape architects -- not developers -- back when it wasn't cheap or easy to do it.

But I hadn't quite reached my quota of snarky remarks for the day, so thanks.

[Roger Greene]

Keith, keep in mind some developments built out in rural parts of the county are done on old farms where the pasture land didn't have trees to begin with.

[triadwatch]

yes i know but then look at what roy carroll is doing off of horse pen creek road as well.

[glenwoodobserver]

Of course, the most famous landscape architect - Frederick Law Olmstead was one of the earliest advocates and designers of green spaces around cities.

And I guess the issue is not just retaining the trees on the site prior to construction, but planting trees as part of the design...especially in affordable home construction.