Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends tougher tree-protection penalties, sends package to council
Summary
After months of public complaints about the Pearl River clearing, Bastrop’s Planning & Zoning Commission recommended higher per-inch fines, daily penalties and a possible criminal penalty be forwarded to city council for consideration; staff said enforcement changes and front‑loading the tree survey process aim to prevent repeat incidents.
The Bastrop Planning & Zoning Commission on a recommendation vote asked city staff to send amended tree-protection rules to city council that would raise the per‑inch penalty for cutting protected trees and impose daily penalties until replacement trees are planted.
The action follows public testimony about the Pearl River development, where commissioners and residents said contractors cleared large protected trees over a single weekend. Commissioners and speakers told the commission they wanted stronger tools to deter so‑called “bad‑actor” developers.
Staff explained the proposed approach at the hearing: lower the protected‑tree threshold to 10 inches (aligning with the state standard), require an arborist tree survey earlier in the permitting process, and tighten enforcement by withholding site development or utility approvals when violations occur. Under the recommendation discussed, a base replacement fee would be assessed per inch of trunk diameter, plus an escalating $1,000 per day civil penalty for each un‑replaced tree, and a one‑time administrative penalty; staff also said legal counsel would research whether a criminal penalty option could be added for the city’s toolbox.
Speakers repeatedly cited Pearl River as the motivation. Staff said Pearl River’s tree survey and mitigation had been handled later in the permitting chain, which allowed trees to be removed between site review and building permits; the proposed code moves tree surveys to an earlier stage so they must be submitted and verified before developers proceed. Staff and several commissioners also emphasized public‑education and faster on‑site review to catch illegal clearing that occurs over weekends.
Residents asked how collected fines would be spent; staff answered that funds would be deposited in a tree‑enrichment or parkland fund and used to plant public trees in parks, rights‑of‑way or other public spaces. Commissioners also discussed differentiating penalties between individual homeowners and commercial developers, and restricting exemptions in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) where state law limits local authority.
The commission voted to forward the recommended changes to council with the request that staff return with revised ordinance text and legal clarification about whether the $1,000 civil penalty under state law could be applied “per tree” or only “per violation.”
Next steps: staff said they will redraft ordinance language to reflect the commission recommendations, consult the city attorney on statutory limits (Local Government Code §54.017 was cited during the hearing) and return to the commission before sending a formal ordinance to council.
