Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation advocate urges Rockdale County to strengthen mature-tree protections
Summary
A representative of the Rockdale Soil and Water Conservation District asked the Rockdale County Board of Commissioners to update the county's tree ordinance and preserve mature trees amid development; a commissioner said the county's ongoing unified development ordinance review is the right time to address the issue.
George Kalechak, a representative of the Rockdale Soil and Water Conservation District, told the Rockdale County Board of Commissioners on May 27 that clear-cutting for new development is removing mature trees and urged the county to adopt stronger protections.
"We only have 27% of our land left in tree forestation here in Rockdale County," Kalechak said during the public-comment portion of the meeting. He cited national figures from the U.S. Tree Foundation and local examples, and asked the board to act on the county's tree ordinance.
Why it matters: Kalechak linked mature-tree cover to multiple environmental and community benefits, including carbon containment, air-pollution filtration and stormwater management. He said preserving mature trees also supports property values and wildlife habitat.
Kalechak told commissioners that developers are clearing lots for new construction without preserving mature trees and pointed to development near Georgia 138 and Ebenezer Road as an example. He said he has shared materials with the county planning department, including work by Lee Clark of the Georgia Forestry Commission, who develops mature-tree ordinances for local governments.
Kalechak also offered national-scale figures, saying the U.S. benefits from mature urban trees in categories he listed as: $73,000,000,000 in environmental benefits, $65,000,000,000 in carbon containment, $5,000,000,000 in air-pollution filtration and $3,000,000,000 in stormwater-management value. He asked that the county "get on top of this tree ordinance."
A commissioner who spoke during the board-comments portion of the meeting said the county is already reviewing its unified development ordinance (UDO) and that now is an appropriate time to consider tree protections. That speaker did not identify themself by name on the record; the transcript identifies the remark as coming from a commissioner on the dais.
Discussion vs. action: The board did not take a formal vote or adopt new rules on the tree ordinance at the May 27 meeting. The matter was raised in public comment and acknowledged by a commissioner as timely to address during the UDO process.
What's next: Kalechak said he has provided an "owner's manual" and documentation to planning staff and the county's deputy director; he requested follow-up. The transcript does not record any formal staff assignment or a motion to direct staff to draft ordinance language during this meeting.
