The Signal Mountain Tree Board met with the Town Council on Thursday afternoon to present recommended revisions to the town’s municipal landscape ordinance, specifically dealing with trees. The ordinance specifies items including the authority and power of the tree board board and their duties and responsibilities. The ordinance recommends species and how and where they should be planted, cared for and protected. The document presented to the council was aimed at protecting the tree canopy and maintaining what is present today, recognizing that trees are an asset to the town.
The recommendations attempted to clean up language in the existing ordinance and specified what the tree board does, stating its objective of protecting trees. The changes that were made, sometimes inadvertently, gave the tree board more authority than the council was willing to permit, prompting discussions of what was acceptable to the town officials. The next step is for the tree board to change the language to make the revised ordinance agreeable to all.
The extent of the authority and power that the tree board has was questioned by Town Manager Boyd Veal and Town Attorney Harry Cash. In the revisions, the tree board was given the authority to advise and participate in the development of guidelines for landscaping and care of trees and shrubs in private developments, going beyond municipal properties. Vice Mayor Bill Lusk asked if the intent was to work with developers or just to establish guidelines. Board Member Andrew Hodgson said the planning commission had requested assistance with landscaping and the board’s intent was to give advice on private property if the planning commission asked for it. The addition of wording for the planning commission to be able to request for the developer to talk to the tree board for input was suggested by Vice Mayor Lusk.
Traditionally, the town follows guidelines in the land use plan for public tree care. Those guidelines have weight in making decisions, said Mr. Veal, and the board’s recommendations, in some cases, differ. The new recommendations from the tree board would require the city manager to get advice from an arborist before removing any tree, including a dead one. This could be problematic, he said, if the tree presents a safety issue. The tree board’s proposal would give Public Works Director Loretta Hopper authority to determine if a tree is dead and poses a hazard, or the city manager could go to the tree board for advice before doing any work. This would cause the town manager to get authority from a subordinate staff member before taking action. Mr. Hodgson said the intent is that the town manager would have to consult before removing a tree that is not dead or not posing a hazard. It was agreed that rewording was needed so caring for every tree would not be a laborious process.
Another issue discussed was the requirement that no ground should be disturbed within the drip line of a tree on pubic property. Mr. Veal said if work is being done in the town’s right-of-way or park, the drip line of a tree could overlap the property line onto privately owned land. Attorney Cash weighed in saying that the property owner would have some rights, such as requiring the city to prevent their tree from damaging their private property. Trimming limbs would be one example, added the city manager. The responsibility of damaging the root system by putting in a new septic tank is an unknown. This question will be addressed at a later time, but Mr. Veal also asked if in reverse, would a property owner be required to get permission from the city before doing work on their private property. “Do we really have that authority?” he asked.
The new guidelines for pruning and tree topping were also questioned. The Tennessee Land Trust’s conservation easements do not prohibit the practice and take precedence over the tree board, said Mr. Veal. Although in most cases it is not desirable to top trees, he said as they grow, views are obstructed and to restore the views, the choice is either to top or remove the tree. Property owners have the same problem, so he suggested adding exceptions to the rules regarding viewsheds. Mr. Hodgson responded that the intent was not to prohibit but only to require consultation with the board or an arborist before it is done.
The town’s role in how to treat dead or diseased trees on private property is another question, with the recommendation “jumping out of municipal property into private,” said Mayor Dan Landrum. "Personally, as a member of the tree board, I’d like the city to have some authority,” said Mr. Hodgson. This is a condition that has been in the ordinance for 10 years, he said. Tree Board member Rob Ritchie said that his interpretation is if a dangerous tree on private property threatened life or property on public property. “The way it is worded, it means every tree in the town,” said Mr. Veal. The city manager said he would look at the town’s maintenance code to see if this question is addressed and, if so, remove it from this landscaping ordinance.
There is a grandfather clause that excludes any tree existing as of June 2, 2020, from complying with the new, revised conditions.
The next step is that the tree board will review notes from this joint meeting with the council and make revisions that were discussed. The revised document will be given to City Manager Veal which he will share with the town attorney to make sure it is good, legally. After that, the ordinance with recommended revisions will be sent to the town council, at which time property owners will be able to weigh-in.
The joint meeting of the tree board and town council in its entirety and the document with suggested revisions to the ordinance can be seen at YouTube Signal-Watch.