DRC unanimously forwards Marion County tree-protection and open-space code changes after debate over specimen sizes, surveys and stormwater limits

The Marion County Land Development Regulation Commission voted unanimously to forward proposed revisions to the county’s Land Development Code that tighten tree-protection rules and revise open-space standards, following hours of technical discussion and several targeted amendments.

Jim Coolard, Marion County landscape architect, told the commission the key changes include updated specimen-tree thresholds: a live oak defined at 36 inches DBH, a southern magnolia at 24 inches DBH and a longleaf pine at 18 inches DBH. “These are the 3 changes that we talked about 2 weeks ago, indicating the live oak at 36 inch diameter, … southern magnolia at 24 inches DBH … or longleaf pine at 18 inches,” Coolard said, framing the revisions as aligned with neighboring counties’ practices.

Why it matters: the changes are meant to make preservation requirements clearer and harder for developers to avoid; staff said the aim is “preserve first, remove only when justified,” and to strengthen enforcement of tree protection during construction.

Major debates and clarifications

Specimen thresholds and survey burden: Commissioners pressed staff about the 18-inch threshold for longleaf pine — calling it small for a specimen tree — and about whether the county should require full tree surveys and arborist reports at the PUD concept stage or defer them to the master-plan stage. Coolard acknowledged variability in tree growth by site and soil, and said arborist assessments and a standardized survey process are central to implementation. Several commissioners sought clearer guidance on when a property owner must provide a certified arborist’s evaluation.

Arborist reports and legal limits on residential removals: Coolard read a state provision limiting local authority to require notice, permits or mitigation for tree removal on residential property where the owner provides a certified-arborist or licensed-landscape-architect determination that the tree poses an unacceptable risk. He presented that as an example the county can mirror in local code to protect homeowners’ rights while allowing regulation in other contexts.

Credit and replacement math: The commission examined how preserved trees should count toward shade-tree and replacement requirements, focusing on credit ratios for 10–19 inch trees and for much larger specimen trees. Staff described separate credit systems — one for shade-tree requirements (measured by caliper) and another for replacement-mitigation amounts (measured by inches) — and emphasized that the code seeks to create incentives to preserve large trees while preventing developers from claiming disproportionate credit without clear standards.

Conservation recording and enforcement: Commissioners debated how to document conserved tree areas so future property owners are on notice. Options included recording preservation language in homeowners’ association covenants rather than placing permanent conservation easements on plats; staff warned that plats are difficult to amend and require careful drafting. Developer representatives described internal practices such as tree-banking and contractual protections tied to HOA documents.

Natural open space and stormwater: The commission re-opened Item 2.2 to consider whether constructed stormwater facilities should be prohibited in areas designated as natural open space. Growth services director Chuck Verdon summarized staff’s view: “As soon as you stick a shovel in the ground … it’s no longer considered open or natural open space,” and advised that grading, clearing or structural modification may change FEMA/CRS (Community Rating System) credits. Commissioners sought a compromise — for example, allowing shallow, minimal grading in limited circumstances or excluding small percentages of acreage — while asking staff to bring CRS-impact data to the Board of County Commissioners.

Votes at a glance

- Item 2.1 (Definitions — specimen-tree thresholds): Approved by the DRC to move forward as presented (motion and voice vote). - Item 2.3 (Tree protection and replacement): DRC voted unanimously to forward the code changes to the Board of County Commissioners as amended. - Item 2.2 (Habitat protection / open space — stormwater limits): Approved by the DRC as amended; staff will provide CRS impact data for the BOCC discussion.

What the DRC directed staff to do

Commissioners asked staff to: (1) clarify when tree surveys and arborist evaluations are required at PUD stages versus master-plan stages; (2) specify credit ratios and favorable-assessment criteria for preserved trees (noting that some commissioners sought restoration of 10–19 inch trees to the credit table); (3) refine language about where preservation or recording obligations should appear (HOA covenants or other documents rather than automatic conservation easements on plats in all cases); and (4) calculate and report potential FEMA/CRS scoring impacts tied to allowing any constructed stormwater features within natural open space.

Representative quotes

- Jim Coolard, Marion County landscape architect: “The code does not prohibit tree removal. It just requires justification.” - Chair (DRC): “I wanted it to be a 48 inch tree,” (statement expressing a desire to increase the live-oak specimen threshold). - Chuck Verdon, director of growth services: “As soon as you stick a shovel in the ground … it’s no longer considered open or natural open space,” explaining staff’s CRS concern. - Tracy Straub, assistant county administrator: staff did not favor broad allowances that would undermine natural-open-space protections and CRS benefits.

Next steps

The DRC forwarded the amended tree-protection and open-space language to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration; staff will provide the CRS analysis and refined drafting recommendations before that BOCC hearing. The DRC adjourned after completing the agenda.

Sources: Marion County DRC public hearing transcript; staff presentations and live discussion recorded during the public meeting.