STRONGER POLICIES ON TREES
One of the most significant actions recommended in the UFMP is to improve regulations to protect and preserve trees in Columbus. We are happy to announce that the City is moving forward on working to improve these regulations.
About Tree Regulations in Columbus
Tree regulations can be grouped into two categories:
Public trees grow on publicly-owned land such as along streets, in public parks and on all city properties. Columbus Recreation and Parks Department’s Forestry section is solely and legally responsible for all public trees in Columbus. Public trees are governed according to City Code Chapter 912.
Private trees grow on land that is privately owned, such as residential, commercial and industrial properties, and are not regulated in the same way in every city. There two categories of private tree regulations - regulation during development and regulations at all times regardless of whether there is construction or development happening. Private trees are not currently regulated citywide in Columbus, which is unusual for a city of Columbus' size.
Input Process for Public Tree Code
We will first review and update PUBLIC tree code before moving onto creating private tree regulations. Here’s how you can provide input on public tree regulations:
1. Initial Input (January-February 2022). We have already collected input from the community on tree protection throughout the UFMP process. However, we offered an opportunity to provide comments before a draft is produced. That comment period ended on February 4th.
2. Public Meeting to Review Regulation Draft (Spring 2022). The City will host a virtual public meeting to review the regulation draft with the public and collect feedback. Sign up for our UFMP newsletter to get a reminder of the meeting date.
What We've Heard To Date
During the UFMP process, we collected a significant amount of input from public on what they are concerned about and/or would like to see in Columbus related to trees. Below is a brief summary of what we've heard to date from the public related to regulations, and that will be used as input into this code revision. For a full list of public input and comments, review the Summary of UFMP Public Engagement report (PDF format).
Better Management is Needed for Existing Trees. The majority of respondents agreed that the current status quo regarding management of existing tree canopy is not working. While all want to see an increase in trees and better protection for them, they also want to see better management of what they currently have. This includes addressing the conflicts between City departments, each of which have their own priorities to fulfill, creating potential conflicts of interests in most projects. Comments included:
There are Not Enough Tree Protection Measures in Place Currently. The general consensus from both stakeholders and residents is that there are not enough tree protection standards. Many hope the UFMP will kickstart the process to update the tree protection ordinance and make changes in multiple areas of city code to ensure new development standards that prioritize tree canopy, mandatory planting ratios and tree removal permits. Comments on both private and public tree protections included:
- “More resources need to be devoted to the care and maintenance of existing trees all over Columbus. There are many trees with limbs damaged by passing cars and pedestrians, serious structural issues (girdling, roots, rubbing, limbs, etc.) and significant split limbs.”
- “Large numbers of existing trees in the right of way that were chosen and planted incorrectly, requiring intense utility trimming that ruins their looks and impacts their longevity.”
- “Make sure every city department is abiding by the City's Tree Executive Order.”
- “It’s not that the departments do not want to cooperate; they all have their own priorities. Too much compartmentalization. Roadblocks. Change is difficult to implement. “
There are Not Enough Tree Protection Measures in Place Currently. The general consensus from both stakeholders and residents is that there are not enough tree protection standards. Many hope the UFMP will kickstart the process to update the tree protection ordinance and make changes in multiple areas of city code to ensure new development standards that prioritize tree canopy, mandatory planting ratios and tree removal permits. Comments on both private and public tree protections included:
- “We are rapidly losing existing trees. Planting trees won’t matter today. City needs to track tree removal through development at plan review to understand real impacts of tree loss to the urban canopy.”
- "Fix the giant loophole allowing developers to use a variance to get out of putting money into the tree fund.”
- “Pass a tree ordinance requiring tree replacement, like many other cities have done. Make trees a part of the developing process, instead of an inconvenient afterthought.”
- “Require new developments to not only provide a minimum tree number, but also require adequate soil volume for those trees.”
- “The electric company could stop cutting down and killing all of the established trees. They killed a 150 year old maple in my backyard and my oak tree out front.”
- “Keep our trees, keep the green spaces, keep parks. Stop cutting down trees.”
- “First and foremost - preserve the canopy that we already have!”
- “City street and utility maintenance crews do not prioritize trees when replacing sidewalks and clearing around overhead power lines”
- “Like many cities, our city leaders can require developers to set aside green space whether for new builds or renovation spaces.”
- “Protect old trees that are doing well. They are super carbon sequesters.”
- “Strengthen city codes and enforce them with fewer variances.”
