573 / 634
Article 5: Development Standards
Section 5.4. Tree Protection
5.4.8. Mitigation for Tree Removal or Damage
June 2013
Morrisville, NC
Page 5-10
Unified Development Ordinance - Public Hearing Draft
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.
2.
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).