By Gregory Childress

gchildress@heraldsun.com; 419-6645

CHAPEL HILL -- A move to strengthen the town's tree ordinance hit a snag Monday, drawing criticism from both residents and council members for being too stringent.

As a result, the council sent the draft ordinance back to the drawing board and directed staff to return May 24 with a kinder, gentler version that addresses concerns voiced by council members and citizens during a public hearing on the matter Monday.

"I really wonder after reading this if we've kind of over-baked it," said Councilman Gene Pease, who acknowledged his role in pushing the town toward the ordinance while serving on the Planning Board a few years ago.

As proposed, the ordinance would establish minimum tree canopy coverage for lots and individual tracts and standards for tree removal activities on residential property, excluding routine maintenance activities.

Removing trees in some instances would require a permit. Property owners would have to demonstrate that a lot will continue to meet minimum tree canopy coverage after trees are removed and replacement trees are planted.

Town officials and others who support the changes say the trees are of value to the town because of their beauty. But they contend trees also help to control flooding and erosion, moderate noise pollution, dust, and other airborne pollutants, moderate the town climate and shelter and feed its wildlife.

While many of the citizens who spoke agreed that trees have great value, they said the proposed ordinance goes too far in trying to control and manage what residents do with trees on their property.

"I have a real problem with the council or anyone else telling people what they can or cannot do with private property as long as it doesn't have a deleterious effect on the community," said Ralph Mason, a 33-year resident.

Furthermore, Mason said, he worried the town would have to hire more people to enforce the ordinance.

"The way our economy is today, I don't think anyone wants to see a tax increase for things that are not necessary," Mason said.

Terri Tyson said the tree ordinance has become a civil liberties issue for residents of Chapel Hill.

"We should be concerned that our local leaders are taking control of our private property," Tyson said. "The ordinance should not be called tree protection. It should be called civil liberties removal ordinance."

She said there are times when government should intervene in the lives of residents, namely when there is some threat or danger.

Tyson noted that Monday was George Washington's birthday, and that when he chopped down the cherry tree he was "in trouble with his father, not the government."

"Both George and his father would be outraged by the tree ordinance and that's why we had a revolution, I believe, because we had a government making up a lot of unnecessary rules," Tyson said.

Lynn Kane said enforcement of the ordinance would be costly and would require residents to snitch on their neighbors.

"Please don't act like a communist central government," Kane said. "Respect owners' property rights and vote no on this new ordinance."

Town business leaders also expressed concern about the proposed ordinance.

Eric Chupp, director of development for Capkov Ventures, Inc., said the changes are the most sweeping on development in the 10 years he's worked in Chapel Hill.

If passed, Chupp said, the effect on development would be wide ranging and an impediment to the future of development in Chapel Hill.

"What started out as a well-intentioned effort to halt the reckless destruction of trees by homeowners has morphed into a sweeping amendment affecting all types of development, including commercial, institutional and residential," said Chupp, adding that provisions in the ordinance would make single-family homes expensive.

Councilman Jim Ward said the proposed ordinance is "probably over-reaching" what the town needs to do.

He said enforcing the requirements would have a fiscal impact on the town because they seem labor intensive.

Ward also said educating citizens about the value of trees would probably be more effective than new rules.

"Education is going to help us have a lot more success than tree police," Ward said. "We need to teach people about the value of trees."