Inequitable, costly ordinance

My experience speaks to my experiences regarding personal, residential and church properties only. I cannot speak to the details of all of the city’s tree ordinances; just to one in particular about which I feel strongly.

As I understand one of the ordinances, residential properties over a half an acre require a permit to remove a tree. It doesn’t matter if the tree is dying, already dead or is presenting a danger to the homeowner or neighbors. IF a permit is granted and the tree is removed, there is a part II to the permit. If removal of the tree causes the shade on your property to fall below a certain percentage (somewhere around 15-20%), the property owner is required replace the tree – following certain requirements or be cited by the city. To remove a large deciduous tree, the cost will be upwards to $10,000 to remove and replace a single tree. This is cost prohibitive and likely not known by most city property owners.

If you have less than a half an acre, there are no restrictions – you can do whatever you want. This sets up an inequitably between larger and smaller lot owners, putting the burden on larger lot owners to support the city-wide tree canopy burden.

In my opinion, this speaks to the city overstepping a boundary (literally and figuratively) which is costly and inequitable. I would like to see the ordinance repealed permanently, or at a minimum, repealed at least until a more equitable solution is achieved.