Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs removal of Chapter 94-11 tree preservation ordinance, 8-0
Summary
The Branson Planning Commission voted unanimously March 4 to recommend removing Chapter 94-11 (tree preservation) from the municipal code; staff said trees remain protected under the landscape article and land disturbance rules.
BRANSON, Mo. — The Branson Planning Commission on March 4 voted 8-0 to approve a municipal code amendment removing Chapter 94-11, the city’s standalone tree preservation ordinance. Planning staff said the change responds to developer feedback that the existing provision impeded housing and commercial development but stressed trees remain protected through the city’s landscape requirements and land disturbance regulations.
Planning staff told commissioners the code amendment was advertised as required. Staff recommended removing Section 94-11 entirely, characterizing the repeal as a targeted deregulation intended to reduce barriers to development while retaining protections in other parts of Chapter 94. Staff said the landscape article would continue to give credits for existing trees, with higher credits for larger specimens, and that best management practices for stormwater and erosion control and the land disturbance ordinance (which applies to one acre or greater) remain in force.
At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke. Planning staff explained the intent was to remove what staff described as an “onerous payment and/or micromanagement” requirement for preservation that applied only to non-built portions of lots; staff said landscaping and open-space dedication requirements would continue to address trees and buffers.
The commission’s roll-call vote recorded “yes” from Commissioner Richards; Alderperson Denham; Commissioner Hillis; Chairperson Grohman; Vice Chairperson Deager; Commissioner Moriali; Commissioner Martinowski; and Commissioner O’Day. The motion carried 8-0.
Why it matters: Removing Chapter 94-11 alters the city’s approach to tree preservation by eliminating a specific local ordinance while retaining protections embedded in landscaping and land disturbance rules; proponents said the change is aimed at accelerating housing and other development.
What’s next: The amendment will proceed according to city ordinance procedures; staff will continue to enforce tree protections through landscape standards, stormwater BMPs and the land disturbance ordinance.
