Weddington plan board advances draft tree-save ordinance; sets definitions, survey and penalty parameters

The Weddington Town Plan Board met in a Jan. 16 work session to review a draft tree-save/tree-preservation ordinance the subcommittee developed with the Union County Urban Forester. Members outlined several near-term decisions for staff to include in a revised draft for the planning board.

Board members said their priority is protecting the town's mature canopy while avoiding rules that lock in poor forestry practices. The subcommittee asked the Urban Forester to prepare an initial ordinance and circulated a revised draft that the board then discussed line by line.

Key outcomes from the work session include: the group agreed to define a Heritage tree as a native, deciduous tree 20 inches or larger (diameter at breast height), to require a tree-survey inventory threshold low enough to capture trees that matter to canopy calculations, and to use a canopy-based preservation approach for development sites. Under the proposed canopy approach, sites with less than 20% existing canopy in the buildable area would be required to preserve 10%; sites between 20% and 40% would preserve 20%; and sites with more than 40% would preserve 30% of canopy in the buildable area. The Union County Urban Forester would approve methods for calculating canopy (aerial imagery plus ground verification when needed).

The board discussed whether protection thresholds should start at 6 inches DBH (in the draft) or be raised to 8 inches to focus protections on higher-quality trees. Members favored tracking small stems in the inventory (a lower threshold for surveys) but moving the protection/permit threshold higher so the ordinance preserves meaningful canopy rather than forcing low-quality small stems to remain.

On homeowner permits, members tentatively endorsed a modest fee (discussion centered on roughly $25) intended to create an audit trail rather than to generate revenue; the fee would apply to permit filings such as removal requests tied to accessory work (pools, additions) and to help the town track canopy loss that could otherwise be used by developers to circumvent requirements.

The draft requires applicants to provide a tree-protection plan and a tree inventory showing protected trees and critical root zones (CRZ). The plan must label proposed tree-fence locations, grading and utility impacts, and identify mitigation where construction intrudes on CRZs. The board discussed fence standards, fencing materials and post spacing, and agreed on an industry-standard temporary fence (orange safety fence with posts capped and spaced closely enough to be effective) as the typical approach.

Members debated how to handle utilities and realistic limits of mandating boring under all Heritage trees. The group narrowed the requirement to focus on wet utilities (water and sewer) shown on construction plans and acknowledged some dry utilities (power, telecom) are handled separately by utility providers.

Enforcement and penalties drew sustained attention. The draft ties noncompliance to civil penalties and to withholding certificates of occupancy until replacement plantings or remediation are complete. Board members discussed raising penalty levels to deter pre-plat clearcutting (one example debated was $800 per inch of DBH for unauthorized Heritage-tree removal with a per-tree cap discussed in the session). No final penalty schedule was adopted; members asked staff to propose a tiered penalty structure in the next draft.

The board also discussed practical matters of timing and cost: whether to require a detailed tree survey at the sketch-plan stage or later (schematic/construction documents), planting timing and soil amendment standards, and how to coordinate review and inspections with the Union County Urban Forester and other agencies (DEQ, county review). Several members favored requiring a more-detailed schematic (not just a simple sketch) when feasible so proposed projects are evaluated against real tree locations earlier in the entitlement process.

Next steps: staff (with subcommittee input) will revise the draft ordinance to reflect the board's direction (Heritage-tree definition, inventory and protection thresholds, canopy-preservation tiers, a modest permit fee, fence/CRZ language, and recommended penalty options) and bring the revised text to an upcoming planning-board meeting for further consideration and public input.

The meeting ended after board members agreed the draft now provides a clear framework for staff and the Urban Forester to use in preparing materials for the planning board.