Trees vs. Construction in the Little City

By KATHLEEN NEBEKER
Falls Church Times Staff

July 20, 2010

On a recent Sunday morning, a tree crew appeared on Forest Drive and removed two mature trees from a lot upon which a new house will soon be built. Given a context where protecting trees appears to be of utmost importance to the City, it is surprising and disconcerting to residents when developers clear-cut lots. While the tree removal on Forest came as a surprise to neighbors, it was perfectly legal, approved and permitted by the City’s arborist.

Here’s a thumbnail version of the City’s tree policy as it relates to construction:

For smaller projects – or those that disturb less than 2,500 square feet of land — the arborist may require that property owners have tree protection fencing installed around City trees and perhaps specimen trees.  Projects of all sizes situated in the resource protection area (RPA) receive additional scrutiny from the arborist. (Per the City code, RPAs consist of sensitive lands that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts, which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters.  A list of properties in the RPA can be found here.)

Projects where 2,500 square feet or more of land is disturbed require an erosion and sediment plan, a grading plan, and a landscape conservation plan.  For these projects, in addition to tree protection fencing for existing trees on the owner’s property and for City trees in the right-of-way, measures may also be required to protect trees on adjacent properties.  If tree protection is violated during construction, a fine or a stop work order may be imposed. At the end of the construction project, the property owner may be required to cover the purchase and installation of new trees and shrubs to meet the tree canopy requirements set forth in the City’s Tree Protection and Preservation Guide.

Why does clear-cutting happen? In many cases, it’s easier for developers to remove trees than to try and protect them during the construction process. The pre-permit work of tree protection can be time consuming, not to mention money consuming, if it takes too long.  Then there is the possibility that the owner or contractor complies with the tree protection measures only to have a subcontractor violate the ordinance.  The Tree Protection and Preservation Guide suggests that property owners write their contracts so that a fine is imposed on contractors who violate the tree protection measures.  (Speaking of tree ordinance violations, according to Washington Post archives, a City resident was arrested in 1999 for removing two oak trees on his property during renovation. The City ordinance was changed as a result and the City agreed to pay $6,000 to the resident and expunge his arrest record.  Today, violators of the tree ordinance face fines rather than criminal charges.)

Clear-cutting also happens when trees are simply in the way. With a permit, trees on undeveloped property, trees on property that is undergoing redevelopment (sites with a building permit application on file), and City trees on the right-of-way may be removed.  Imagine a lot where trees are growing where the dining room is planned.  Or, a City tree is blocking the proposed driveway.  As with other trees, a property owner may request that a City tree be removed if it interferes with the intended use of the property. Permits are not required to remove a tree on residential private property if the property is not under development, unless the tree is a specimen or historic tree.

Here’s the code showing what the arborist considers when evaluating tree removal permit applications:

Sec. 44-110.  Permit review and issuance.

(a)   Factors to consider.  In addition to reviewing for conformance to standards and guidelines contained in the public facilities manual, the following factors shall also be taken into consideration:

(1)   The extent to which tree clearing is shown to avoid excessive clearing and still permit the applicant to achieve the proposed development or land use.
(2)   The extent to which the actual or intended use of the property is in accordance with the regulations of the zoning district in which the property lies requires clearing of trees.
(3)   The hardship to the applicant which will result from a modification or rejection of the required permit.
(4)   The desirability of preserving any tree by reason of its size, age or some other outstanding quality, such as uniqueness, rarity or status as a landmark or species specimen.
(5)   The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the trees.
(6)   The heightened desirability of preserving tree cover in densely developed or densely populated areas.
(7)   Whether the tree is diseased, injured beyond restoration, in danger of falling, interferes with utility services or creates unsafe visual clearance.

(b)   Replacement of trees.  When warranted in the judgment of the arborist, the applicant may be required to replace, in accordance with a tree replacement plan, any tree being removed with a suitable replacement tree elsewhere on the site. In determining whether the replacement of trees is reasonable and shall be required, the arborist shall consider the intended use of the property together with an evaluation of the following:

(1)   Existing tree coverage, size and type;
(2)   Number of trees to be removed;
(3)   Area to be covered with structures, parking and driveways;
(4)   Grading plan and drainage requirements; and
(5)   Character of the site and its environs.

(c)   Approval.  If the permit application conforms to standards and guidelines and there are no objections resulting from consideration of the factors listed in subsection (a) of this section, the permit application shall be approved.

(d)   Rejection.  If the permit application does not conform to standards and guidelines or there is an objection resulting from consideration of the factors listed in subsection (a) of this section, the permit application shall be rejected. The arborist may require that the application be modified to bring it into conformance with the standards and guidelines or to eliminate any objections to the application.

(Code 1982, § 35-13; Ord. No. 811)

The decision to remove trees in the way of construction rests with the City’s arborist.  The arborist or urban forester receives guidance from the Tree Commission. The Tree Commission consists of volunteers who are city residents, eligible to vote, and approved by the City Council. Currently, the Tree Commission has one member, a botanist, and four vacancies.

On Forest Drive, the arborist permitted tree removal with the condition that one existing tree is preserved and that nine replacement trees be planted on the property once construction is complete.  The existing tree plus the nine replacement trees will provide the requisite tree canopy coverage in 10 years’ time.  However, even in 10 years, the replacement trees will not take the place of what has been removed in terms of appearance, shade or watershed protection.  Yet, it was done according to the City’s code.

Looking beyond residential construction, the City recently launched the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Plan.  Part of this plan will focus on building sidewalks to make the City more pedestrian friendly. The City’s right-of-way is where sidewalks typically are built, and many trees are currently planted in the City’s right-of-way or very close to it.  Some of these trees may survive sidewalk construction.  Others will need to be removed.

Sidewalks vs. Trees — now that will create some interesting conversations in the Little City.