8.0. SR 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1999 .... ~II, PAUL PIONEER PRESS SUBURBS STILLWATER Tree 'propOsal upsets owners Of large lots MARRY DIVINE STAFF WRITER 5h and Rosemary McKenzie boUght their, home overlooking Long Lake in St!l.l,water because of all the trees on and -*"mhd their lot. · J~t if a proposed tree-protection ordi- napce is passed in the city, the McKen- zles vow never to plant another tree on th~ik.proper[y. "I'm' not going to plant another tree, not if they're going to pc' naiize me," Don McKenzie says. "We'd justhave all these liabilities all over our prgperty. Once this goes through, we would be' growing hundreds and hundreds of liabilities." ?City officials say the ordinance, which will. be discussed Thursday night dUring a public meeting at City Hall, was pro- posed because of the large number of trees 'that. were cut down to make room for new housing developments. .'The goal is to protect trees on develop- m.ent sites, improve the standard of tree care, require adequate tree replacement ahti ~prevent soil erosion on bluff lines and'. slopes caused by the removal of .trees; said Steve Russell, the city's com- munity development director. .~'[We decided we needed to tighten our reg'Ulations regarding tree removal,", sell said. "The (proposed ordinance)- amits the removal of trees to a certain nuriiber Per area and. requires replace- m~t!t of removal trees. We view trees as a ..~0mmunity resource. We all share in tlie,.".responSibilitY to protect trees.'' · '-The proposed ordinance establishes siz- i e~'for significant trees -- 6 inches around ot;'gi'eater -- which are to be protected, reqiiires site review of development pro- j&/t~s: and requires a tree inventory and tree protection plan for the site. The or~linanee would apply to people who owii lots of more than one acre. · B,ut MeKenzie, who owns a 10-acre lot, says* the proposed ordinance is far too res[rietive and discriminates against peo- ple,who own large lots. He says the city's eu'rrent tree Ordinance is adequate. 'dI've got nothing against saving trees," he,?~ays.' ,'It's just that the~ current pro- po~al~ discriminates against certain prop' erty owners --and deprives those prop- ert:~ owners of their: persOnal'PropertY ri~ts~ The whole basis, of the ordinance is that the property owners don't own the tre~s,'--'~they give 'those Up to:.societYii, Affd' then th~ city tells yoU what 'you can do'with them if you have to remove a tt~e~;' yoU have to pay fees, pay fines and have the city forester come out: The city tares over your trees."" Kathy Widin; the city's forestry cOnsul[ tant, said the city's current ordinance contains "just general tree protection language." The new ordinance explains what constitutes a' significant tree and regulates the cutting of trees along bluffs and in ravines to prevent soil' erosion, she said. '~'The current draft would require more tree: replacement than is currently re- quitted,'' she said. "We're basically trying to '; ~itigate the damage that's done to pr;JPerties and the community when trees are '~emoved. The real'goal of this is to pre/,ent unnecessary tree removal, par- tidiilarly, for native woodlands." The. ordinance applies to larger lots because "most of the tree damage is goiflg to occur on lots that are more than an:'acre in size," Widin said.