What’s Happening to Chapel Hill’s Trees?
A perspective from Rudy Juliano, for Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town
Many residents of Chapel Hill appreciate the verdant beauty of the numerous mature trees that grace our town. Thus, people have been shocked by the extensive clear-cutting that has taken place recently at several major construction sites. This includes the Retirement Residence on Estes Drive, the Merin Road Community on Homestead Road, Carraway Village on Eubanks Road, the redevelopment of Glen Lennox and several projects in the so-called “Blue Hill” district.
An egregiously unsightly clear-cut took place last summer at the corner of Estes Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. For many years this tract of land was a tree plantation, and as such was taxed at a rate substantially lower than other land in the area. After enjoying years of tax benefits — and almost immediately after the clear-cut — the property owner and a developer submitted a concept plan to the Town of Chapel Hill for a project on the site. The plan includes 269 dwelling units, retail and office space and a 4-level and a 6-level parking deck. Such a dense car-oriented development is likely to cause major traffic problems at the busy Estes-MLK intersection, as well as increased water runoff from the now treeless land. The Town Council reviewed the concept plan on April 17; several council members expressed concern about aspects of the project. Importantly there is an unusual wrinkle to the review of this particular project. Since the land was previously used for forestry, under North Carolina General Statute 160A-458.5 the Town has the ability to refuse to approve a proposed project for a period of three years after a timber harvest. Such a delay would give both the Town and the developer a chance to plan for better use of this key property. Whether the Town will have the courage use its authority to delay this project remains an open question.
Estes Drive Clear Cutting. Photo via Blake Hodge.
A larger question is why these extensive clear cuttings are suddenly taking place. In years past, many development projects in Chapel Hill seemed to be able to incorporate at least some of the existing mature trees into the design of the project. As one example, the Franklin Grove townhomes that are located across from Whole Foods retain many of the original mature oaks that grew on the property. Southern Village and Meadowmont also managed to save at least a modicum of mature vegetation even though these developments are quite dense.
This is not just a matter of aesthetics. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, emit oxygen, filter pollutants, retain water run-off and generally help to mitigate many aspects of climate change. The Town of Chapel Hill claims to be working to become a more sustainable and resilient community, including a commitment to the Paris climate agreement. How is it then that the Town is allowing its mature trees to be felled by the thousands?
Chapel Hill does indeed have a Tree Ordinance that spells out the amount of tree cover required for various types of development. For example, apartment or condo projects are supposed to have 30 percent tree cover. But all the recent clear-cuts show that the tree canopy ordinance is not working. For developers it is much cheaper to clear-cut a building site rather than to maintain existing mature trees, so developers a have a strong interest in ignoring or working around the ordinance. The maximum fine for a major violation of the current ordinance is only $20,000; this seems like a lot — but it’s really a tiny amount to absorb in a multi-million dollar development project. Typically, a project developer plants new trees as the project nears completion. However, these are usually tiny saplings that will take decades to mature. Recently Town staff has apparently determined that 10-ft saplings should count as full replacements for the mature trees that have been clear-cut; this is certainly a nonsensical decision!
This situation must change. Chapel Hill needs a Tree Ordinance with ‘teeth’ that will block extensive clear cutting. In June 2018, CHALT petitioned Town Council asking that the ordinance be amended so that:
- Planting of small diameter trees does not offset the need to preserve mature trees.
- Approval of any Special Use Permit or Development Agreement should be contingent upon adherence to the Tree Ordinance for the duration of the project.
- Strong penalties should be developed to provide effective deterrents to violations of the ordinance.
- A panel should be established with the authority to override permission that town staff might grant to remove rare or specimen trees.
So what happened? Town Council referred the petition to staff for comment and it has languished with staff for a year, despite repeated requests from citizens for staff to provide a recommendation to Council. Please contact the Mayor and Council and let them know trees are a priority!
“Viewpoints” is a place on Chapelboro where local people are encouraged to share their unique perspectives on issues affecting our community. If you’d like to contribute a column on an issue you’re concerned about, interesting happenings around town, reflections on local life — or anything else — send a submission to viewpoints@wchl.com
Thank you for this article.
More of this result could be on the way, as Carrboro considers rezoning 27 acres of woods beside Morris Grove Elementary School, into dense commercial and high-rise apartment development. The proposal is that only 20% would be open space. The only guidance to a developer is to keep trees ‘to the extent practicable’. There is no fine as described in the article. No trees are protected.
No environmental studies have been performed. Yet the Zoning plan is being pursued rapidly with goals to complete this business before the end of June.
If this seems like a process that needs better input, contact the Town of Carrboro!
When I was part of the government of the County Of Maui, we had very clear rules related to water run off, participation in roadway and school improvements, fire flow and storage capacity, wastewater treatment capacity, tree preservation, etc. It does not appear that the government In Chapel Hill has the required knowledge and sophistication to appropriately assess impacts and costs. Wish I could help.
Such clear cut may cause flooding at the downstream. Decision must be carefully made fully consider the variables.
So…this is how perspectives get distorted in public forums. The premise of the article is good…of course we want thoughtful growth as defined by good governance. But the fact set is off the mark. Though mentioned, it isnt made clear that as forestry property most of the tracts referred to that were cut are outside of ANY local regulation…they are exempt and fall under State laws only. The Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill both tried every avenue to reach a compromise position with the land owner but had no authority what so ever. the Town can invoke the 3 year freeze if they choose to…wont bring back any trees or require any more be planted than if it is developed tomorrow.
Speaking to regulation in general, both Towns have…and have had for several decades…robust rules on development including pervious surface limits, storm water quantity and quality (zero net impact) and every other aspect of development you can name. It is simply not fair to drive by a job site and assume we understand the project….its engineering or history…one bit. Part of the reality that policy makers (and re-makers…the ordinances are frequently amended based on citizen input) face is that the matrix of limitations taken in totality can not prohibit the use of property…that would be a “taking” and is also beyond ANY municipalities authority. Another is that with what space IS left to develop there are design tradeoffs no matter how “good” the rules are. Planning for the 100 year FUTURE use of a property by allowing more land disturbance in the near term and calling for, say, planting of 2″ caliper street trees is definitely NOT the same as protecting an existing specimen tree in a half acre pocket park in the middle of a project…but it is a legitimate tool in striking a balance between uses and coming up with a desirable outcome. The community howled and howled when Southern Village was a cleared muddy hillside in the early 90’s…walk it (its walkable because it is dense!) or drive it now and see what you think…and realize the development ordinance has become exponentially more detailed since the ’90’s!
Chapel hill is not a quaint city on a hill. It has become the next expansive drive to place ugly developments so we can have another Starbucks and pizza parlor.
Contacting council members didn’t do any good when I tried that action. Contacting the office of our Mayor was not the path to take either. And when I attended a meeting for voters to speak directly to the plans proposed for yet another ‘developed area’, the attitude of the developer was nothing short of disdainful. I think we can all figure this out. Oh, and who did you vote for today?
R. Bowman
Nov 5, 2019