Tree ordinance amended

The Charlotte City Council on Monday adopted amendments to its tree ordinance that remove density incentives from single-family developments of less than four lots and 2 acres and that require a tree-save buffer around properties using cluster-subdivision density incentives.

Two of the amendments take effect immediately; the third, the buffer requirement, will take effect in mid-November, following a motion by District 7 Councilman Ed Driggs.

Driggs said the three-month delay would give developers who have already begun investing time and money in a project based on current standards enough time to move those projects forward, while not providing enough time for others to rush a project through in an effort to avoid the new requirements.

“I want Charlotte to be seen as a business-friendly environment,” he said.

After seconding Driggs’ motion, District 1 Councilwoman Patsy Kinsey said that the first two amendments “take care of the biggest problem we’re hearing about immediately. We’re really concerned right now with character of the neighborhood and single lots.”

Those amendments would clarify the definition of single-family development and limit tree-save incentives to sites subject to the subdivision ordinance.

District 5 Councilman John Autry cast the sole vote against the amendments, saying that while he commended the staff’s work on the proposal, he didn’t think the council had been given enough time to consider its options. The changes were first proposed in May, with a public hearing July 18. Council members Vi Lyles, Kenny Smith, and James Mitchell were absent from the meeting.

The council began taking a look at the tree ordinance following complaints from people who live in several established neighborhoods with relatively large lots. Because those neighborhoods are also a short commute to Uptown, many have recently seen infill residential development that took advantage of the higher densities permitted under the tree ordinance in exchange for larger tree-save areas. Those neighborhoods include Wonderwood Drive and Hunter Lane off Randolph Road; Country Club Heights; NoDa; and Dilworth and Myers Park near Freedom Park.

Charlotte added tree-save incentives to its development ordinance in 2002 to prevent clear cutting. It requires at least 10 percent of trees to be preserved, and allows smaller lot sizes if more than 10 percent is preserved. Developers often prefer such “cluster” development because it reduces construction and engineering costs.

Between September 2014 and June, 19 projects have been approved that used tree-save incentive to subdivide and reduce the size and width of lots, and another seven plats are under review, according to the city planning staff.

The delayed provision will require developers on larger parcels who agree to preserve 25 percent of the land for trees in exchange for smaller lots to use perimeter lots as tree-save areas or to create a minimum 20-foot tree-save buffer around the perimeter of the property, to minimize for neighbors the visual impact of denser development. Previously, the tree-save area could be anywhere on the parcel.

“We’re pleased that Council agreed to defer implementation of the new perimeter tree buffer requirement in last night’s meeting,” said Joe Padilla, executive public policy director for the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, in an email Tuesday. “The deferral will give developers now negotiating with land sellers time to adjust to the new regulation, which we see as a reasonable, business-friendly policy.”

In an interview last week, Padilla said the perimeter requirement may not always be feasible.

“You would need a 100 percent wooded site,” he said, in order to ensure a perimeter tree-save area. “If you have, say, 3 acres that are maybe wetlands, instead of preserving and designing around that, you would need to have them all around the perimeter.”

Secondly, he said, buffers are intended to protect neighboring properties for a more intense use. “If it’s buffering multifamily, industrial, or office, why would we need to protect those if it’s a less-intense use?”

Padilla said his organization was “not thrilled” with the elimination of the incentives in small developments, but understood the need for it.

“It’s hard for the city to manage the tree save, and neighbors are frustrated” by homes being built on lots that are substantially more narrow, he said. “It’s a neighborhood character issue.”