Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weddington adopts stricter tree ordinance; council raises per‑tree penalty cap to $50,000 and adds review safeguards
Summary
After public comment and staff discussion, Weddington’s council unanimously adopted amendments to the town UDO (section d917) clarifying tree inventory and canopy preservation, adding review by the Union County Urban Forester, and doubling the per‑tree fine cap to $50,000 to strengthen deterrence and legal defensibility.
Weddington Town Council unanimously adopted an amended tree ordinance that updates the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (section d917) to require tree inventories, clarify canopy preservation objectives, and strengthen review and enforcement provisions.
The ordinance revision was developed by a subcommittee chaired by Bill Deer and refined with input from Town staff, the planning board and Union County urban forestry staff, including Dr. Keith O’Haren. Council members praised the work of the subcommittee and staff and discussed several substantive edits before the final vote: they asked that the town require review of developer‑prepared tree surveys by the Union County Urban Forester (rather than rely solely on developer‑commissioned surveys), and they increased the proposed per‑tree penalty cap from $25,000 to $50,000 to address inflation and create a more effective deterrent.
Council discussed legal risks of very large civil penalties and noted examples from other jurisdictions; staff said the penalty is a civil enforcement tool intended to discourage large‑scale clearing and that the town can use mitigation (replanting and restoration) where appropriate. A councilmember proposed that developer‑funded tree surveys be reviewed and verified by the county urban forester at the developer’s expense; council agreed to adopt review language that preserves staff flexibility to engage the urban forester for verification.
Resident commenter Chad Emine supported the update and suggested clarifying evaluation criteria used in RCD (resource conservation) areas; staff and council indicated they would incorporate that language. Council adopted the ordinance as amended and approved a consistency statement finding the change aligned with the town’s planning documents.
Under the adopted language, applicants must submit a tree inventory and have that inventory reviewed by the town and the Union County Urban Forester as appropriate; the ordinance retains a financial penalty framework and additional administrative remedies for intentional or egregious clear‑cutting. Council noted enforcement tools include permit suspension and mitigation requirements when violations occur.
