PITTSBORO — Pittsboro’s Town Board on Monday continued its extended process to complete the tree protection portion of the Chatham Park Development plan, hearing more input from residents and activists but taking no action — other than to schedule a workshop solely devoted to discussing tree protection for March 18.
Chatham Park, planned development of more than 7,000 acres just north of the Pittsboro town limits, is expected to add at least 30,000 new residents over 30 years. Tree protection has become one of the most contentious elements of Chatham Park’s master plan, which also includes things such as affordable housing, lighting, landscaping, stormwater management and public art.
Chatham Park representatives attended the Monday meeting to answer any questions from the board on the tree protection element.
Seventeen people spoke during the public comment section of the board meeting, each taking up the allocated three minutes each for comments and each speaking in opposition to Chatham Park’s plan. Over the next hour, one by one, each person addressed the board — sometimes passionately, with some shedding tears during remarks — about their desire to protect trees in Chatham Park as the community is developed.
Following the comment period, Pittsboro Town Planner Jeff Jones provided a primer of the town staff understanding of the element as currently proposed. The element identifies three different area types which determine the amount of tree protection the element would mandate. The “Village Center” area is similar to a very dense downtown core, according to Jones. The next area, an “Activity Center,” is less dense and includes all land uses. The last area, which was noted as “outside of commerce,” was compared to suburban areas.
Jones then compared the tree protection requirements in the element to those in Durham’s ordinances, noting that was a request made by the board. Chatham Park’s tree protection element would require three percent of tree protection in the residential areas of the village centers. Durham does not require any tree protection in its downtown area. It was also noted that Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill don’t require any tree protection.
In the Chatham Parks’ proposed Activity Centers, tree protection will range from 10 to 15 percent on a sliding scale. If Chatham Park keeps more of the older, more established trees, the percentage will be closer to 10 percent. If it chooses to replant, then it would be closer to a 15 percent requirement. Durham currently has a three percent tree protection requirement in similar areas, but Jones noted that they are currently discussing increasing that to seven percent.
In areas outside of the main commercial zones, tree coverage in Chatham Park’s residential areas would be 20-25 percent, while non-residential uses would be required to maintain 10-15 percent tree coverage. Jones noted that was almost identical to Durham’s ordinances.
Pittsboro Commissioner Bette Wilson Foley questioned why Pittsboro was basing its element on Durham.
“You should engage Chatham Park,” Jones said. “That’s what we were asked to research.”
Pittsboro Commissioner Michael Fiocco noted Durham’s ordinance was “one that incentivizes tree preservation” as a key feature through its sliding scale, similar to the one in the tree protection element, which was something the board said it wanted.
Fiocco also noted some of the concerns raised by residents and wanted to clarify some misunderstandings.
“We are not contemplating clear-cutting 90 percent of Chatham Park,” Fiocco said.
Fiocco noted that other parts of the Chatham Park Master Plan include tree coverage that does not count toward the tree protection coverage. That included parks which would be under the Town of Pittsboro’s ownership, greenways, and street and landscaping requirements which have already been put into place. Fiocco also noted that the required tree buffers for streams and rivers in Chatham Park range from two to 10 times more than state regulations for the same.
“This concept of 90 percent of all trees going away is not true,” Fiocco said.
“We have to find a balance between environmental concerns and socio-economic concerns,” he said. “We need affordable housing, we need jobs. A big piece of the Chatham County Comprehensive Plan is to preserve the rural natural of the county and focus growth in the towns. We are trying very hard to reach that balance.”
Jones also noted the rest of Pittsboro has no tree protection ordinance. Small developers building anywhere else in town don’t have tree protection requirements to build in town limits.
“Anything we do now will be better than what we have,” Jones said, noting that the state will only allow protections to a certain extent, and then suggesting the board seek advice from the town attorney to see where they do or do not have legal standing.
Pittsboro Commissioner John Bonitz noted concern for the “dramatic removal of trees” if land was turned over for forestry management, the process by which a landowner can legally timber their land. Timbering in Chatham County is a very common practice that is protected under state statute. There was some discussion about whether the town could limit the possibility of forestry management on Chatham Park land. Town attorney Paul Messick repeatedly told the board that preventing private owners from having forestry management plans which follow all the rules as prescribed by the state would violate state law.
“I am still accumulating questions for Chatham Park,” Bonitz said. “I think we need a workshop.”
“We received this in May 2017,” Fiocco replied. “I would like to take the time when its on the agenda. If no one else feels prepared, I understand.”
At that point, Chuck Smith, vice president of planning and development for Preston Development Company, which is overseeing the development of Chatham Park, came to the podium to answer questions and make any changes to the element the board requested.
Fiocco then began to go through the document page by page, asking for slight changes to ensure clarity, expand protection areas, and ensure that the term “mixed-use” would not be able to be used to limit tree protections. Smith obliged each request. Smith also clarified that parks Chatham Park sets aside for the town of Pittsboro could not be used in calculating tree protection areas. Similarly, greenways would also not be used for calculating tree protection areas but tree areas surrounding those greenways could be.
Commissioners Bonitz and Foley asked questions about enforcement for tree protection. It had been noted earlier in the meeting by Jones that when the town came to inspect properties during the final process to ensure all zoning ordinances were followed, tree protection would be included in those inspections.
Commissioners then engaged in a lengthy discussion about whether landowners who purchased property following the initial development were still beholden to the tree protection element. It was clarified that individual landowners, whether homeowners or commercial owners, would then be responsible for their properties and that the tree protection element was for the initial Chatham Park development alone.
Bonitz and Foley asked if there could be a way to enforce landowners who may lose a tree due to storm damage or disease be forced to replant. The town attorney noted that there’s currently no ordinance that requires that noting the difficulty in enforcing such a plan. There was also commentary that such an ordinance may put the town in a situation of sorting through neighbor versus neighbor conflicts.
Without a vote or decision, the board concluded its discussion and scheduled a tree protection workshop to take place at 6 p.m. on March 18 at the Pittsboro Town Hall, located at 635 East Street.