Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Master Management Plan - 2014

Article 5: Development Standards Section 5.4. Tree Protection 5.4.8. Mitigation for Tree Removal or Damage

5.

Fences and Walls Installation of fences and walls shall take into consideration the root systems of existing trees. Post-holes and trenches close to trees shall be dug by hand and adjusted as necessary to avoid damage to major roots. Continuous footers for masonry walls shall end at the point where major large roots are encountered and these roots bridged.

5.4.8. Mitigation for Tree Removal or Damage

A. Removal Pursuant to Waiver of Requirements 303

1. General On determining that features of a development site make it unfeasible to meet the minimum existing tree canopy retention standard in Section 5.4.4, Tree Canopy Retention, or the specimen tree preservation requirement in Section 5.4.5, Specimen Tree Preservation, the Planning Director may waive or partially waive such standard or requirement and allow removal of trees in accordance with this section. Criteria for Waiver 304 Before the Planning Director may waive or partially waive the minimum existing tree canopy retention standard or the specimen tree preservation requirement, the applicant shall clearly demonstrate that compliance with the standard or requirement would necessarily preclude reasonable development of the site in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and of other Town, State, and federal regulations. Factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The extent to which the size and features of the development site (e.g., floodplains, riparian buffers along water bodies and watercourses, steep slopes, and existing utility lines and easements) pose constraints on the developability of areas not covered by existing tree canopy; b. The feasibility of relocating, resizing, or reconfiguring building footprints, parking areas, utility lines, or other development features to accommodate compliance with the canopy tree retention standard and specimen tree preservation requirement as well as other applicable regulations; and c. The opportunity and feasibility of using the Administrative Adjustment procedure (Section 2.5.19), the Alternative Equivalent Compliance procedure (Section 2.5.20), an alternative parking plan (Section 5.10.9), or an alternative landscaping plan (Section 5.12.7) to provide 303 This recognizes that removal of existing trees may be unavoidable to allow reasonable development of property, but conditions any waiver on there being no alternative and the removal being compensated with replacement trees. 304 Section 4 of the tree protection regulations drafted by Town staff allows removal of tree canopy if compliance with retention standards precludes development of at least 50% of allowable floor area. This subsection replaces the 50% criterion with a reasonable development criterion, to provide more flexibility in case 50% of allowable floor area still does not constitute a reasonable use of a property. The staff draft regulations list several considerations related to potential constraints on site development (location of natural site features and major transmission lines, land needed for site access and required parking). It also calls for consideration of ―environmental and aesthetic benefits to the community,‖ which it describes as the net contribution to maintaining or improving water quality, air quality, natural ecosystem function, and the quality and extent of the site‘s vegetative appearance. This subsection is modified to clarify the apparent intent that removal of tree canopy (or specimen trees) otherwise required to be retained is justified only if there is no feasible alternative to meeting the requirement and attaining reasonable development of the site. It modifies the factors to be considered to reference the potential conflict between meeting tree protection requirements and meeting other development requirements and potential use of the UDO‘s flexibility provisions to avoid such conflicts. It does not carry forward the ―environmental and aesthetic benefits‖ consideration because they don‘t relate to constraints posed by having to comply with tree retention and replacement requirements. We recognize such considerations as appropriate to review of alternative or compensating design, which this UDO addresses in Module 1‘s Alternative Equivalent Compliance procedure and this Module‘s proposed alternative landscaping plan provisions (Section 5.12.7). 2.

June 2013 Page 5-10

Morrisville, NC

Unified Development Ordinance - Public Hearing Draft