Walton County holds workshop on draft tree-protection ordinance; staff to revise draft after public input

Walton County planning staff held a public workshop to review a draft tree-protection ordinance and invited residents, engineers and developers to comment. The session produced detailed questions about which projects the rules would cover, the ordinance’s interaction with existing preservation requirements and technical concerns about how mitigation and tree surveys would be applied. No vote or formal action was taken.

County staff opened the meeting by describing changes in the draft: a required tree-protection plan for most new developments, a cumulative 60-inch diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) preservation threshold, and language that would prohibit removal of landmark trees except through a development order, clearing permit or other approved process. A county planning staff member said the version on the front desk reflected revisions made after earlier public comments and that the workshop was intended to focus solely on the draft tree-protection ordinance.

The draft would exempt single-family dwellings on existing lots from the tree-protection plan requirement, a change staff highlighted after public questions. Multiple speakers pressed for additional clarifications and exceptions — notably for agricultural uses and county projects — and asked that language on how preserved trees count toward landscape-buffer requirements be clarified.

Developers and engineers raised cost and implementation concerns. Scott Jenkins, an engineer who works on Walton County projects, urged the county to align the ordinance with other sections of the land-development code and state stormwater rules so requirements do not conflict. "If you're really gonna go green, then we need to start looking at some of the other sections of the code," Jenkins said, urging incentives and low-impact design allowances so developers can save trees without violating other technical requirements.

Several speakers gave concrete cost estimates and technical details. A landscape contractor and tree supplier provided typical installation prices used locally: about $450 for a 2-inch caliper tree, $750 for a 3-inch caliper, $1,150 for a 4-inch caliper, $3,200 for a 6-inch and about $10,000 for a 10-inch specimen. A participant who does surveying reported sample tree-survey quotes around $1,200–$1,500 per 10 acres and estimated that new regulatory steps could add roughly $200–$500 per acre to predevelopment costs, depending on the site and necessary expert work.

Commenters also debated technical definitions and measurement methods. Several engineers and landscape professionals asked the county to clarify whether replacement requirements should be expressed in caliper (nursery sale standard) or DBH (regulatory standard) and urged consistent definitions in the ordinance. The draft’s table of species and size thresholds was described by staff as an initial compilation that should be reviewed by arborists and adjusted for local species availability.

Speakers asked the county to spell out when preserved trees in buffers, wetlands or street-tree plantings would count toward the cumulative 60-inch requirement. One longtime resident and developer proposed permitting staged fill near a protected tree ("I put 6 inches of dirt. 6 months later, I put 6 inches of dirt... 6 months later, I put 6 inches of dirt") as a technique to protect root systems on some sites; others warned staged fill can raise adjacent grades and create drainage issues.

Several residents described a desire to protect large live oaks and other legacy trees; others — including local engineers and smaller developers — warned that more regulations raise the up-front cost of new housing and can disadvantage smaller local builders. Robert Brothers, who operates a small tree service, told staff he had feared the ordinance would affect routine homeowner removals but expressed relief when staff pointed to the single-family exemption: "That's the best thing I've heard all night," he said.

Multiple commenters suggested practical changes for the draft: allow a county-administered tree bank in lieu of on-site plantings, credit preserved buffer and street trees toward mitigation totals, exclude rights-of-way and utility corridors from site-required tree counts, permit certain agricultural or conditional uses to be handled differently, and add guidance so the director’s discretion is consistent and not arbitrary. Speakers also requested an economic impact estimate showing how the draft would affect per-unit costs for typical homes and developments.

Staff closed by saying the workshop was intended to collect ideas and that the draft would be revised based on public input. The planning staff said the ordinance would need to go to the Planning Commission and would require two hearings before the Board of County Commissioners before adoption; a specific timetable for those steps had not been set. Staff asked participants to submit additional written comments and said they would consider follow-up workshops and requested technical input on incentives and conflicts with stormwater, preservation and other code sections.

The workshop produced no formal actions or votes. Instead, it surfaced technical, legal and cost issues county staff said they will address as they prepare a revised draft for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.