Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning & Zoning approves variance so Caroline Court can proceed while city rewrites tree rules
Summary
The commission approved a variance to waive a required tree-assessment deliverable for the Caroline Court (formerly Villages of Montgomery) development, citing a claimed $120,000 assessment burden, and directed city council and engineers to clarify reforestation requirements before final approvals.
The Montgomery Planning & Zoning Commission on the meeting approved a variance allowing developer Parkside Capital to proceed with preliminary work on the Caroline Court subdivision while the city and its engineers revise unclear tree-preservation rules.
City staff told the commission the developer had asked for relief from a required tree assessment because of what the developer described as a roughly $120,000 cost to survey, photograph and inventory trees above a specified caliber across the site. City staff said the current chapter 78 ordinance does not include clear mitigation standards tied to a tree assessment, leaving applicants uncertain about how to meet preservation or replanting obligations.
“...they are wanting to adhere to the general requirements for landscaping within the city. It's just they are not expecting to take on this financial burden of what they're calling to be a $120,000 for that assessment,” City staff said.
An engineer for the applicant told commissioners the new ordinance lacks a mitigation formula and that reverting to the prior approach — a 20% canopy requirement across the development plus two trees per house (one minimum 2-inch-caliper and one 30-gallon size) — would be workable. “There's actually nothing in the current ordinance that says when you remove said tree of said size, this is how you mitigate it,” the engineer said.
Commissioners debated the value of a full tree survey versus using the older canopy-and-per-lot standard. Several commissioners said the $120,000 estimate was onerous and would stall the project; others urged caution about losing existing canopy if plantings were not enforced long-term.
A motion to approve the variance, tied to reverting to the prior reforestation expectations (20% canopy and two trees per lot) and contingent on city council and engineering clarifying and formalizing the ordinance language, passed after a second. Staff said the city will bring clearer mitigation language back for formal adoption and that the developer will proceed with civil plan review once the preliminary-platting hurdle is cleared.
The commission’s action was procedural: it allows the developer to move forward to avoid a schedule delay while the council and staff work on updating chapter 78. Any final plat or tree-preservation enforcement still depends on subsequent reviews and council actions.
