Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henderson council adopts strengthened tree-protection ordinance
Summary
The Henderson City Council on Feb. 25 unanimously approved Ordinance 21-06 to repeal Section 17‑9 and replace it with a new Tree Protection code that extends protections into the extraterritorial jurisdiction, requires plans in some harvest cases, sets buffers and increases enforcement, city staff said.
The Henderson City Council voted unanimously Feb. 25 to adopt Ordinance 21-06, replacing Section 17‑9 of the city code with a more detailed Tree Protection ordinance intended to curb clear-cutting, require plans in certain harvesting scenarios and extend protection into the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, Development Services Director Corey Williams said.
City Manager Terrell Blackmon told council the item had been discussed at the prior meeting and that staff believed the existing code lacked sufficient language to protect tree canopy and create buffers between properties. "The replacement ordinance is all about protecting the existing trees and the canopy provided by those trees," Williams said, describing new provisions on tree harvesting, protections for large trees, fees in certain situations and added enforcement tools. He said some projects will require plan submissions and that the code will work in concert with the zoning ordinance.
Council members pressed staff for specifics. Council Member William Burnette asked whether a homeowner on a 100‑by‑100 lot would need to submit a plan to remove a few trees; Williams said routine removal would not require a plan but harvesting a lot for sale of timber would. Council Member Sara M. Coffey asked how "harvesting" was defined; Williams said it meant selling trees for profit. City Attorney Rix Edwards confirmed the ordinance covers both the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Staff also advised that the list of acceptable replacement trees in the ordinance includes both common and genetic names to help residents choose replacements.
The ordinance is not retroactive, staff said, so recent clear‑cut sites will not be required to replant under the new rules. Edwards recommended posting the ordinance on the City’s website and issuing media notice; Council Member Garry D. Daeke suggested notifying local realtors as well to ensure community awareness.
Council Member Melissa Elliott moved adoption of Ordinance 21‑06; Council Member Jason A. Spriggs seconded. The motion carried: YES — Marion B. Williams, Sara M. Coffey, William Burnette, Melissa Elliott, Garry D. Daeke, Ola Thorpe‑Cooper and Jason A. Spriggs; NO — none; ABSTAIN — none; ABSENT — D. Michael Rainey. The vote and ordinance appear in Ordinance Book 10, p. 821.
Next steps: staff said implementation will include outreach and coordination with County partners and that the ordinance may be amended after the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process is complete.
