• A clear statement and supporting documentation of the public need necessitating such regulation of private property and individual rights, to wit, what percentage of the tree canopy loss is from privately owned properties?;

• That the issue of loss of tree canopy as the result of development or redevelopment be specifically incorporated INTO the ordinance.

• A staff estimate of cost to homeowners to comply with guidelines.

• The estimated number of trees potentially affected and the County goal and objectives of reforestation;

• The definition of a tree. (It is unacceptable to give any government officials the right to determine whether "any specific woody plant shall be considered a tree", (including, but not limited to, saplings?);

• Specific criteria for designation as, or consideration as, "Heritage Tree", "Memorial Tree" Specimen Tree", "Street Tree" (including whether the canopy of a tree over a street right of way or root projection constitutes "grows"; whether exclusively on County property or partially within the right-of-way - possible need to clarify under "public" portion of proposed ordinance;

• A definition of the term "damage";

• A definition/explanation of "Guidelines"

• A description of circumstances under which "a taking of private property for a public purpose or use" could occur;

• Rights of compensation for "a taking of private property for a public purpose or use", including definition of "by fee or other consideration";

• Resolution of issues of liability should a County recommendation against removal result in personal or property damage;

• Personal liability if a tree is destroyed after treatment by a tree company engaged by a private homeowner in good faith as to competency; specifically, specificity as to the meaning of "any person or entity�causing, contributing to, or permitting injury to or removal or destruction of a Heritage�."

• Greater specificity as to the economic value of a tree and resolution of conflicting estimates;

• That subsection D of �10.1-1127.1, the State authorizing legislation, be specifically incorporated into such ordinance, specifically "In the event that the application of any ordinance regulating the removal of heritage, specimen, memorial or street trees results in any taking of private property for a public purpose or use, the governing body shall compensate by fee or other consideration the property owner for such taking and the ordinance shall so state thereby notifying the owner of his right to seek such fee or other compensation". (Emphasis added);

• That �25-46.1 et seq., governing the "taking" of property under 10.1-1127.1, be incorporated by specific reference into the ordinance;

• That questions governing the jurisdiction of General District Court versus Circuit Court be further clarified per �25-46.4 of the Code of Virginia;

• Whether this ordinance will prevent homeowners from expanding existing homes or building new structures.

• An absolute timeframe in which a citizen can receive on-site consultation from the County Arborist or "county manager's designee" on issues of removal, maintenance, etc.

• A procedure is codified to arbitrate conflicting professional horticultural opinions;

• Resolution of the issue of procedure when an improper tree was planted, and its continued existence threatens structures on private property or neighboring properties;

• Criteria for negotiating "replacement", particularly if the property owner is interested in different types of trees, specific cultivars known for their disease resistance, etc.

• A specific, limited time period during which the County must make a decision as to designation as Heritage, Memorial, Specimen or Street, particularly when done over the objections of a private property owner;

• That questions governing the jurisdiction of General District Court versus Circuit Court be further clarified per �25-46.4 of the Code of Virginia;

• Description of how the County will educate people as to the care of private property trees, including, but not limited to, a cost-benefit analysis;

• How the County will educate citizens on the criteria of selecting professional arborist services.

• That the County rewrite the ordinance so as to encourage the planting and care of trees on private property, including financial inducements and diagnostic/evaluative services of arborists.

Here is the Federation's Resolution on the Tree Ordinance, passed on November 12, 2002.

This page was last revised on: December 27, 2003.