Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscaping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board recommends approval of artificial‑turf rules but records strong public and Tree Board opposition
Summary
The board recommended Ordinance 2024‑14 to the City Commission to define and regulate artificial turf — treating it as impervious for code purposes — but noted public and Tree Board statements urging pervious treatment or an outright ban due to environmental and health concerns.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Nov. 6 recommended that the City Commission consider Ordinance 2024‑14, which would add a definition and performance standards for artificial turf and limit its allowable uses. Staff said the ordinance reflects direction from the May 9 City Commission and treats artificial turf as an impermeable surface that does not count as living ground cover for landscape points.
Board members questioned the ordinance’s characterization of turf as impermeable, noting that installation methods and long‑term accumulation of detritus can alter permeability. Several members urged the code language be precise about permeability and how landscape credits are applied. Public commenter Peggy Fisher said the ordinance language appeared inconsistent with the May 2024 City Commission direction and asked who instructed staff to draft it; she also expressed concern about impacts to restaurants and apartments and front‑yard calculations. Written attachments from the Tree and Landscape Board and a statement by Donna Kerner (Tree Board Chair) argued the city should continue to prohibit artificial turf, citing claims that artificial grass contains PFAS and other toxins, increases heat islands, breaks down into microplastics, cannot be recycled, and undermines Tree City USA principles.
Vice‑Chair Daniel Walesky moved to recommend approval to the City Commission "with the notation that artificial turf be considered as pervious and not landscape material," and Dave Mathews seconded; the motion passed unanimously. Staff emphasized the ordinance would limit turf to specific uses (for example, non‑city athletic fields, certain rear/side yard uses in single‑family zones, rooftop terraces, and recreation areas in multifamily zones) and that the City Commission previously deemed the material impervious for fee and impact calculations. The Tree Board attachment and speakers requested stronger restrictions or an outright ban, and staff noted the draft currently treats turf as nonliving material for landscape scoring.
