news-record.com

NEWS

New city rule? Tree in every yard

Article
Comments (19)

Friday, July 31, 2009

(Updated 1:31 pm)

By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — Proposed city development standards would require a tree in front of every new house and would limit the growth of large churches in neighborhoods.

Greensboro’s recommended new land rules also would require property owners to explain whether they have worked with neighbors who might oppose a rezoning. But the rules stop short of requiring developers to meet with residents over controversial redevelopments.

Those requirements are just some of the changes in an overhaul of the city’s land development standards. A draft of the new ordinance could be before the city planning and zoning boards in October.

The proposed changes could go before the City Council this fall. If approved, they would take affect Jan. 1, 2010.

The new rules were developed with the help of a consultant and were debated by a volunteer committee.

The draft regulations encourage developments that mix residential and commercial uses and high-density residential development, like apartments, along major roadways with access to public transportation.

For the first time, the proposed regulations also would require developers to plant at least one tree when they build a new home. City Planning Director Dick Hails said the issue was a source of debate among members of the ordinance development advisory committee, which is made up of real estate representatives and neighborhood advocates.

Other proposed regulations put restrictions on mega-churches and large schools.

The new land development rules would require those types of large assembly places to have access to a major roadways and would regulate off-site parking.

Churches have enjoyed freedom to expand into neighborhoods, said Marsh Prause of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress. Some have grown to dwarf the single-family homes around them.

“They have tried to clamp down on that, and that is a very good thing for neighborhoods,” Prause said.

Neighborhood representatives also pushed for standards that would require developers to meet with residents and explain their plans before they go to the zoning commission to request a rezoning.

The change was unpopular with developers.

After much debate, the advisory committee recommended a compromise. The draft ordinance requires developers to submit a report to the city that details what kind of contact they have had with residents surrounding a proposed rezoning.

Even though the proposed rule stops short of requiring a developer to meet with neighbors, it is still is an improvement over the previous ordinance, said David Wharton, a member of the advisory committee that helped rewrite the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would require bike racks and bus shelter space for some developments. It also would require that new homes be built in a similar way to existing residences in established neighborhoods.

“You won’t have a property on a vacant lot in an older neighborhood end up with this McMansion that is totally out of character,” said Mary Skenes, a member of the advisory committee.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Michael McQueen

Photo Caption: The Greensboro skyline.

More online

City of Greensboro Development Ordinance Rewrite

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Illiterati

July 31, 2009 - 8:32 am EDT

A tree in every yard is a good thing. When we bought our house, there wasn't a tree to be seen, which I thought was odd since we're in the midst of an established neighborhood. We later learned from our neighbors that the builders bulldozed our formerly nicely wooded lot, even though the house was constructed in what had been a natural clearing. I was mad when I learned that, mostly at myself for encouraging this practice by buying the house.

Without natural cooling from mature trees, we spend a lot on electricity to cool the house, and establishing landscaping is a total PITA (especially since the builders also scraped away all the existing topsoil). I asked our builders why they didn't leave any of the trees or topsoil, and they replied that it didn't occur to them not to clear the lot. They didn't think anything that existed on the lot had any value. We've planted many trees, but I think the next owners will enjoy the benefits of our labor.

Laura

July 31, 2009 - 8:42 am EDT

I once had a conversation with a developer on the coast of NC, who had changed his practice of bulldozing every tree, and instead, preserved as many as possible. He said that although it was a little harder to build that way, he wound up making more money in the end, because home buyers prefer mature trees in their neighborhoods; he became an advocate for the practice, and used it as a marketing tool. Change is good.

farmartist

July 31, 2009 - 9:26 am EDT

Another possibility that would improve the whole environment of Greensboro is to closely examine members of the Planning & Zoning Committee for their connections to development, realty, lending institutions - all people to gain by influencing planning. Only a matter of ethics!

Panacea

July 31, 2009 - 7:52 pm EDT

I looked at buying in newer neighborhoods and was always turned off by the lack of trees. I couldn't understand why anyone would not want trees in the yard for shade, cooling, and natural beauty.

I bought in an older neighborhood. I have a nice stand of oaks and maples in the back, and a great hickory in front. My property looks so much nicer than the newer homes that are just down the street who have nothing in the yards at all.

TerryT

August 1, 2009 - 7:26 am EDT

A lot of developers are forced to bull doze because of building codes. They have to grade for drainage and so it may not be a choice.

countryboy

August 1, 2009 - 5:28 pm EDT

True...but mature trees do much to improve drainage...the bottom line is that it is cheaper to bulldoze the entire lot than to bulldoze around it. Our covenant, which is not the most restrictive, requires the purchaser of the land to leave as many trees as possible...remove only what is needed for the construction site.

read_and_learn

August 1, 2009 - 11:33 pm EDT

this is not a good rule. just like the rule where you cant park your car in your own yard. If I own (or rent) the yard/ house , then why cant I park my car there ? Parking a car in the road invites car breakins and someone driving into the side of your car and it impedes 2 way car traffic. Who wants to walk in heavy rain to the road because they cant park their car near their house ? ........................About the tree rule : Who will pay for this tree ? The purchase , installation and trimming is not free. Who will rake the leaves ? What if you want a vegetable garden , but you cant, due to the shade from the tree ? Or remove the tree leaves from your roof down spouts which get clogged up from leaves ? What about water ? if we have no rain, the tree wont live (for the first few years after it was planted). Tree roots buckle (destroy) sidewalks and drive ways , water pipes and drain pipes, by cracking them , who will pay for that ? The biggest problem is that in a bad wind/ rain storm, ice storm, or lightning strikes, the tree can easily fall on your house. who pays for the house damage? What about when the tree falls on your new car and ruins it ? or your shed or green house ? dont any of you readers see the photos on the news of the tree that falls across a road , which blocks traffic, or destroys a whole house ? Do the people in city hall have the right to impose these tree and car parking rules ? ............I say that they dont . What do you other greensboro residents think about these 2 rules ? Also, what do you guys think about the sales tax (proposal) going from 7 to 8 percent ? A big segment of nc residents are living near poverty. A very large number of them dont even have any job. If they do , it often pays very low wages. We are already way over taxed, lets lower taxes, ...................and lower city/ county,/ state and federal spending. Thats the only way we can reduce taxes is by reducing wasteful government spending.

bbsmith2

August 1, 2009 - 11:31 pm EDT

Some people may not want trees due to the maintenance. Some people might not be able to rake leaves, high folks to rake the leaves or something along those lines. Do you guys remember a few years ago everyone bought those bradford trees and they a lot of them blew down because of a shallow root system. Some other things about the trees is that they can grow into the pipe system. I don't know how many of you have had that problem, but it's expensive to fix.

I'm not arguing against the trees, but to require them is annoying. I'm not a fan of the City requiring this. Will they require what type of tree it is? Will they require where it will be planted? Will they pay for the added insurance if it blows over and damages property? Will they pay for the increase in your water bill because of watering?

Laura talked about the developer that saved trees and used it as a selling point. Other developers that do things like that or offer to plant trees should be rewarded through more sales year quarter. The City could help out those developers through the red tape issues. I would rather see that then the City dictating some rule about a tree.

You can see it now "You may only plant X type of tree in this neighborhood. It must be 12 feet from the road. It must be 12 feet from the house. It must be 20 feet from you neighbors homes. It must grow at X feet per year. If it dies within X years it must be replaced at owner's expense." It's going to be some rule like that and our taxes will go up to enforce it. We'll have the raise taxes to pay for the extra water. They'll have to raise taxes to for the extra trucks to haul the leaves away. I just don't see this being a good thing and it'll lead to more stuff being regulated.

read_and_learn

August 1, 2009 - 11:18 pm EDT

r u serious

August 1, 2009 - 11:33 pm EDT

Your funny...

read_and_learn

August 1, 2009 - 11:52 pm EDT

to (r u serious)...what part of my comment do you find amusing ? and why so ?

r u serious

August 2, 2009 - 12:42 am EDT

Well, its kind of your post and the one before. It doesn't mean everyone now has to go out and buy a tree for their front yard, its for new developments. Best time to put a tree in since the builder knows where the gas line, phone line, waterline, etc is located, don't you think?? Pick something native to the area. If the buyer doesn't like it, they can pull it, if they really like the house. As for parking your car in your lawn, more power to you. Looks messy to me. I'm guessing from your post, you don't have a driveway or perhaps you live outside of the suburbs. The other comments about "X type of tree, X feet from house, X feet etc" sounds more like Home Owner Association requirements. Garden and tree shade? How big is this tree....
Weather happens. Nature happens. Trees fall on property, property gets destroyed by tornadoes, trees remain.
Again, It only states the builder requires to put in a tree, doesn't state owner has to keep it there.....

read_and_learn

August 2, 2009 - 1:23 am EDT

for ( r u serious ) ..................the rule is not written completely at this time. How do you know the city wont require you to replant the tree ?. and say it must be x feet from this and x feet from that and a certain species of tree? Do you like the idea of the city saying that your house must look exactly like the house next to yours ? This is also part of the new rules they are trying to impose on us. Pulling a tree creates a large hole which cost cash to fill up. and plant grass. Its wrong for the city to impose rules that cost home owners cash, and have you seen what happens when a tree falls on a house ? its not pretty , nice, fun or cheap. Or how many people do you know that cant use their toilet because tree roots invaded or even crushed the main drain pipe ? Do you think it looks good when tree roots tear up a driveway ? It looks a lot messier to me when someone drives into the side of your car. versus parking your car out of the way of traffic. Streets are to drive on , not have cars parked on both sides where 1 car can barely get through. Even a car on 1 side is a hazard. I have a drive way and i live inside the suburbs. I think i have the right to park my car any where on my property that i choose. you say trees fall on property....thats not possible if you dont have trees near your house, car, shed, ect. Trees do not always remain as you say, look at the news when we have a wind storm. lots of trees fall. Tornados only affect a few houses in most cases. A wind/ rain/ ice/ or snow storm normally covers the whole city or half the state. I love trees , but Trees belong in the forest , not next to a house/ car / shed ,fence ect.

r u serious

August 2, 2009 - 1:59 am EDT

Yeah... I lived in Florida. Been in several hurricanes, seen it first hand. Friends who had extensive damage, cities crippled. That should sum up most of your comments. Got to say, never met anyone who had problems with tree roots, although I'm sure it happens. Cars, streets, whatever... Its off this topic.
I could also take the conservation route...houses don't belong in forests, so stop clearing the land for houses. If the rule is not written completely, take your arguments/complaints to the city. Do your civic duty

r u serious

August 2, 2009 - 2:17 am EDT

Guess what I'm saying, this conversation is over

Get Real

August 2, 2009 - 1:54 am EDT

"The draft regulations encourage developments that mix residential and commercial uses and high-density residential development, like apartments, along major roadways with access to public transportation."

We definitely need more stuff like this. Greensboro needs to be more walkable.

r u serious

August 2, 2009 - 2:02 am EDT

I read it as 2 separate issues

read_and_learn

August 2, 2009 - 3:08 am EDT

this conversation is not only for you . its for anyone who reads this news paper.

read_and_learn

August 2, 2009 - 3:23 am EDT

if you dont think tree roots can cause problems then heres a link to a good website , it reads in part :
Mature trees add beauty and shade to landscapes, but their roots can cause extensive damage to sewer pipes. Roots grow into the pipes because they like it there! Sewer pipes contain water, nutrients and oxygen-the essential elements for trees to grow. Aside from sewer blockages and backups caused by FOGG, tree roots growing inside sewer pipes are one of the most expensive sewer maintenance items experienced by our customers. Roots from trees growing on private property and on parkways throughout the service area are responsible for many of the sanitary sewer service backups and damaged sewer pipes.

Each homeowner is responsible for maintaining their sewer laterals-the pipe that connects the sewer pipes in the house to the main sewer pipe, which is usually in a street. Because the pipes are buried and out of sight, homeowners usually don't have any clues to potential problems in their laterals until it's too late.

The flow of warm water inside sewer pipes causes vapor to escape to the cooler soil surrounding the pipe. Tree roots grow toward the vapor to the point of its source. The source of the vapor is usually cracks in the pipes or loose joints. Once the tree roots reach the crack or loose joint, they will grow through the opening to reach the plentiful nutrients and moisture inside. Once inside the pipe, the roots will continue to grow, and if not disturbed, they will eventually completely fill the pipe with hair-like root masses. These masses can act as a net as they catch household fats, oils, grease, grit (FOGG), tissue paper, and other debris discharged from the residence.

Slow flowing drains are the sign that the system is having a problem from roots. Homeowners will notice the first signs of a slow flowing drainage system by hearing gurgling noises from toilet bowls. A complete blockage will occur if no actions are taken to remove the roots/blockage.

As roots continue to grow, they expand and exert considerable pressure at the crack or joint where they entered the pipe. The force exerted by the root growth will break the pipe and may result in total collapse of the pipe. Severe root intrusion and pipes that are structurally damaged will require replacement.

Homeowners should be aware of the location of their laterals and sewer cleanout pipe, and refrain from planting certain types of trees and hedges near the sewer lines. Trees should be located more than 10 feet from sewer lines to minimize root intrusion. Also, homeowners should choose small, slow-growing species with less aggressive root systems, and to replace them before they get too large for their planting area.

What you can do if you have tree roots in your lateral
Once roots are in your lateral they will likely eventually cause a blockage. The best way to prevent this is to schedule regular cleaning of your sewer lateral. The common method of removing roots from sanitary sewer service pipes involves the use of augers, root saws, and high-pressure flushers. It is also important to keep your sewer lateral structurally sound. Any structural fault can allow roots a way into your sewer lateral. You may wish to hire a plumber to video your sewer lateral to determine its condition and if any repairs are needed.

http://www.paininthedrain.com/roots.aspx