NMCA president Bob Bainbridge read the infill ordinance to be presented this afternoon and found the following change from the one that was approved by the Planning Commission. It dramatically changes the issue of tree protection and replacement and essentially negates any compromises we felt had been made. Please note Section B below which is in bold print. This was NOT in the draft approved by the Commission. For R-6 zoning where the lot is 6000 sq. ft., this means it’s possible that NO trees would be required to be either preserved or replaced! This makes it even more critical that as many people attend this afternoon’s meeting as possible.
19-6.9.7 Tree protection and replacement
Protection of existing tree cover is intended to preserve the visual and aesthetic qualities of Greenville; to encourage site design techniques that preserve the natural environment and enhance the developed environment; to control erosion, slippage, and sediment runoff into streams and waterways; to increase slope stability; and, to protect wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Preservation or provision of trees near structures also serves to conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs.
(A) Tree surveys are not required for single-family lots or single-family subdivisions. However, the location, species, and size of trees that are proposed to be retained should be shown on a site plan.
(B) Including required street trees, one canopy tree shall be planted for each 3000 square feet of lot area, excluding building footprints and the first 3000 square feet of lot area. Such tree(s) shall be a minimum 2½ -inch caliper and may be planted anywhere on the lot. Each existing canopy tree proposed to be retained and measuring at least 6” in diameter, shall count as two new trees.
(C) Trees intended to be retained shall be protected during construction consistent with the provisions of Section 19-6.3.3. (ed. For specifics on tree protection see https://library.municode.com/HTML/13105/level3/COOR_CH19LAMA_ART19-6DEDEST.html I was led to believe at one Planning Commission meeting that this did not apply to residential…apparently someone rethought or re-read that section.)
