back
Denton has a disturbing habit of closing the
barn door after the cows have escaped.
The original tree preservation ordinance was written in 1988
as a reaction to the destruction of a beautiful stand of native
oaks at the corner of Teasley and Dallas Drive.
When those trees were destroyed they were replaced with a shopping
center named after trees. Woodhill Square. This so enraged the
community that there was a city wide effort to create an ordinance
that would ensure that nothing like this would happen again.
Just recently we have had another similar event. The Flow Hospital
site, 101 of the 127 mature native Post Oaks, were destroyed.
Once again we have out of town developers who purchased a piece
of local history, cut down most of the oaks and have the nerve
to name their project after trees. The Hickory Park Apartments.
What happened to the Tree Preservation
Ordinance?
The original Tree Preservation ordinance of 1988 was drafted
by a committee of citizens and was balanced to meet the needs
of the community. It was not a particularly tough ordinance,
but it did offer a small amount of protection for trees with
a girth of over 10 inches. If a tree had to come down to make
a project work, it could, but the process was not automatic.
Basically, you could still cut down big trees: but you had to
give them a fair trial first before you could kill them.
In 1998, the Council modified the ordinance to permit more leeway
for developments such as United Copper and Walgreens. In that
version, the Council (myself included) allowed for the designation
of certain Landmark trees, but stupidly overlooked a loophole
that allowed for their complete replacement with smaller trees.
This was a mistake which effectively ended any real tree preservation
in Denton. Landmark trees were not automatically designated as
such because of their size, but had to be specially designated
by the Planning Director. Language in the ordinance allowed the
illusion to persist that there was some sort of tree preservation
in effect, but this was just not true.
When the Denton Development Code was passed in 2002, even the
nominal language of tree protection was removed from the books.
Once section called for protection of a certain percentage of
tree cover in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other areas,
the Code calls for landscaping, but no protection for existing
trees. It would be possible to cut down a mature forest of giant
Post Oaks and replace them with saplings and no permit would
be required.
There is however one overlooked section left
in the Code that offers a small bit of protection for some trees.
Subchapter 18 on Land Disturbing Activities, states its purpose
is to prevent "untimely and indiscriminate removal or
destruction of trees...". One of the criteria listed
for granting a Clearing and Grading Permit is: "Demonstrates
that the project will result in the reasonable preservation of
trees."
In September of 2002 I mentioned this section of the code to
the Planning Director and asked how this would be applied at
the Flow site. I got no answer but in October, the Planning Staff,
members of the Chamber of Commerce and a Dallas attorney, began
meeting to discuss how they could remove this language.
Their suggestion was to omit any reference to trees and change
it solely into an ordinance that protects storm sewers from sediment.
This completely misses the point. In April, the Planning and
Zoning Commission rejected this ridiculous proposal.
What about the Flow Hospital site?
The ordinance clearly states that there must be a "reasonable
preservation of trees" for a permit to be granted. It
also states that "mass cutting (of soil), filling and
benching or terracing of existing slopes to create additional
or larger building sites are prohibited." Was there
a reasonable effort to preserve trees for this project and by
what measure was this determined before granting the Clearing
Permit?
Larry Reichart, acting Planning Director has stated that since
this language is ambiguous, the staff determination is purely
subjective and they do not enforce it. Instead of spending the
last eight months trying to remove the ambiguities and strengthen
the ordinance, the Planning Department spent their time trying
to gut it.
Clearly, had the Code been enforced, at least some of the destroyed
trees could have been saved. Along Ponder Street, 14 of the giant
oak trees have been destroyed on land that will not even be paved.
By moving two nearby parking spaces these could have easily been
saved. I'm no attorney, but I'd say you could define a "reasonable
effort" as any effort at all.
Several people have commented in the paper that the decision to cut down most of the Post Oaks at the Flow site was lamentable, but legal. This is somehow supposed to excuse the developer from any responsibility for his actions. I disagree. There are plenty of perfectly legal actions that are bad for the community and just because the Raels are from out of town does not diminish their responsibility to be good citizens.
Could this have been avoided? If the Council had worked to close the loopholes in the zoning code some of these trees could have been saved. If the existing Land Disturbing Activity ordinance had actually been enforced by the City staff, more of the trees could have been saved. If the developers had paid heed to local sentiments, they could have built some fine apartments, saved some more trees and not created such animosity in the community.
I hope that we can learn from our mistakes yet again, close the loopholes, enforce existing ordinances, create a real tree preservation ordinance, and not stand idly by as the best parts of our community are hauled off to the landfill.
Mike Cochran
The Denton Neighborhood Alliance is hosting
a meeting on June 19th to discuss creating a new tree preservation
ordinance.
http://dentonneighborhoods.org