Atlanta committee hears hours of testimony on tree protection ordinance; item held for further testing

The Community Development & Human Services Committee on May 13 heard more than 50 members of the public testify about a proposed Tree Protection Ordinance and then voted to hold the item for further review.

The substitute brought forward at the meeting would advance parts of the May 1 draft TPO while the Department of City Planning continues testing the ordinance against the city’s zoning rewrite. Committee Chair Jason H. Winston said several draft elements require further alignment with zoning, and members voted to hold the item pending that testing.

The issue drew hours of public comment with speakers split between stronger tree protections and concerns that the ordinance, as drafted, would make new housing economically unworkable. “It is time for us to rethink and change not just the Atlanta tree protection ordinance, but the very way that we develop our city,” said Terry Nye, a registered landscape architect who described climate and storm impacts as a rationale for stronger protections. Developers and industry representatives warned that preservation standards, higher recompense fees and new limits on disturbance would reduce buildable lots and drive up costs. “The preservation standards are gonna be detrimental to economic development in this city,” said Michael Paris, president and CEO of the Council for Quality Growth.

Developers and builders suggested procedural changes as a compromise: Adam Brock of Brockville Homes asked that an early limited-disturbance meeting with an arborist be required so tree constraints are identified before a developer has invested in a project. “Don’t require a developer or builder to even have an owner’s authorization, but be able to sit down with the arborist on day 1,” Brock said. Habitat for Humanity leaders and attorneys said elements of the draft would severely reduce the nonprofit’s ability to build affordable homes in the city. “As presently constituted, it’s impossible,” said Jim Blackstone, senior vice president for Habitat for Humanity.

Tree advocates and nonprofit groups urged the committee to move forward with protections and to increase recompense revenue that funds planting and maintenance. Dalil Anthony, cofounder of Tree Next Door and chair of the Buckhead Council of Neighborhoods’ tree committee, raised concerns about administrative costs in the tree trust fund and urged a cap on salaries paid from recompense revenue.

Committee members and planning staff said the ordinance needs to be tested in practice against the zoning rewrite (commonly called “Zoning 2”) before the council adopts elements that affect site layout and density. City Planning Commissioner Janae Prince and staff confirmed a substitute intended to advance measures that do not require ordinance–zoning integration, while pausing design and preservation standards that must be tested.

Formally, the committee considered a substitute and then a motion to hold. The motion to hold passed 6–0; the clerk recorded the outcome as held in committee. Members directed staff to continue stakeholder work and to test the TPO against Zoning 2 and other related regulations prior to relisting.

If adopted, the draft TPO would change preservation standards, update payment (recompense) schedules and add new registration and enforcement provisions for tree professionals. Speakers cited several numerical and program details during testimony: the meeting had “over 50 people signed up” for public comment and each speaker was limited to three minutes; multiple speakers referenced the May 1 draft; one commenter said the draft would require a 35% site preservation standard on some sites and illustrated how that could remove roughly one acre from a 3.3-acre parcel; others discussed recompense fee proposals (advocates noted a recommended $200 per tree and $60 per inch schedule, while earlier materials or drafts cited higher per-inch figures).

Background: the city has been revising its tree ordinance for years and the May 1 draft was the focus of outreach and public meetings. Committee members emphasized they want to avoid unintended consequences for affordable housing, infrastructure maintenance and utilities while also addressing canopy loss identified by tree advocates.

The committee will not vote on final TPO language until staff completes testing against Zoning 2 and reports back; the item remains held in committee pending those tests.