Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lago Vista commission begins rewrite of tree ordinance; residents and builders clash over fees, protections and exemptions
Summary
Planning & Zoning heard staff and public input on proposed tree ordinance changes: lower protected‑tree diameter, broaden permitted uses of mitigation funds (remove ‘pocket’), and reconsider fee levels and caps. Commissioners asked staff to draft specific ordinance language (including possible exemptions for small lots and a certificate‑of‑occupancy carve‑out) and to return for review.
At a workshop portion of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff brought forward three council‑referred changes to the city’s tree and landscaping ordinance and opened detailed public comment and commissioner discussion.
Staff outlined three requested changes: reduce the diameter threshold for a protected tree (proposal discussed at 10"→8" or down to 6" in subcommittee discussion) while preserving the Texas code caveat exempting owner‑occupied single‑family homes below the owner‑occupied threshold; strike the word “pocket” so mitigation funds could be used for broader park development; and reconsider the existing fee schedule ($250 per inch with a $10,000 cap for single‑family properties) to better capture large removals and match actual replacement cost. Staff said the ordinance currently allows developers to replace trees or pay the mitigation fee; it does not permit use of mitigation funds for operations or maintenance, and certain types of park development are excluded by current wording.
Public commenters and builders urged different approaches. Some residents and parks advocates (Carolyn Douglas and other PRAC members) pressed for stronger protections and broader use of mitigation funds for parks and canopy protection; others (Kenneth Belair, Jared Phillips, and several builders) said the proposed changes risked pricing small‑lot homeowners and builders out of the market, and urged exemptions or tiered approaches for building envelopes and small lots. Builders recommended distinguishing between tree removals inside the building envelope (where cuts are often unavoidable) and removals outside it, and suggested using higher fees for large developments while allowing leniency for single‑family lot building envelopes.
Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement capacity (staffing is limited), potential use of bonds or maintenance warranties for new plantings, whether the LVPOA acreage should be counted (it cannot be counted toward the city’s level of service), wildfire and safety concerns about cedar/Juniper, and the feasibility of new definitions (native‑tree lists, canopy requirements). The tree subcommittee presented 39 recommendations and a top‑7 priority list for immediate action; the commission agreed to ask staff to draft ordinance revisions for the priority items and to return with legal and administrative language for review.
The commission indicated consensus on removing “pocket” from the allowed uses for mitigation funds, moving toward higher minimum sizes for replacement trees (3" caliper and 8' height as a starting consensus), and directed staff to draft exemptive language for one‑ and two‑family residential properties post‑certificate‑of‑occupancy while acknowledging the need to keep the measure administratively enforceable.
