Residents urge rules on cutting of trees
East Brainerd residents to push for restrictions because they are afraid a proposed development will lead to soil erosion.
By Duane W. Gang Staff Writer

A crowd is expected at tonight’s Chattanooga City Council meeting as a group of East Brainerd residents urges the council to adopt strict new rules for clear-cutting trees.

Residents in the Concord, Concord Highlands, Audubon, Kenmoor and other neighborhoods off East Brainerd Road are afraid a proposed development will lead to soil erosion and flooding, similar to what happened with a project along North Concord Road. Workers now are cutting trees at the property south of East Brainerd and west of Gunbarrel roads.

Jack Vincent, 72, of Ridgetop Drive said he is trying to get more than 50 people to attend tonight’s meeting. The city needs new regulations for clear-cutting, he said.  "We want to see (a new law) in effect to prevent things like this," he said. "We don’t have any issues with (the land) being used as residential. You don’t have to clear cut to put residential in."  Mr. Vincent said residents oppose any attempt to commercially develop the land, now zoned for residential use.

The developer, Jerry W. Fowler, still is deciding exactly how to use the property, his lawyer Andrew Berke said Monday.  "This is a very commercial area," Mr. Berke said. "He is taking a look at all his options as far as what to do with the zoning."  The council has eyed new clear-cutting rules for more than a year, ever since a development in the 1200 block of North Concord Road caused mudslides, flooding and other damage to nearby homes.  But so far, the council has approved only a measure requiring a permit before trees are cut down on more than 1 acre of land. To get a permit, a developer must make sure there are proper runoff controls in place as part of the city’s stormwater laws. The measure does not prevent a developer from cutting all of the trees down.

Mr. Fowler’s work at the East Brainerd site was in progress when the city passed the new measure last month, and the issue eventually landed in court, officials said.  Mr. Berke said Mr. Fowler had his own erosion plan in place when the new city law took effect.  "As it stood when we went to court, Mr. Fowler had voluntarily agreed to put in a soil and sedimentation plan that was not required by law," Mr. Berke said. "He agreed to stop cutting trees when there was no legal requirement to do so."

A court order — signed by Chancery Court Judge Howell N. Peoples, City Attorney Randy Nelson and Mr. Berke — allowed Mr. Fowler to continue cutting trees as long as no hardwoods were cut and no trees were removed from within 650 feet of East Brainerd Road.  Mr. Berke said those were measures Mr. Fowler was willing to take voluntarily.  Late last week, according to city officials, trees were being cut within 650 feet of East Brainerd Road. The Public Works Department issued another stopwork order and took the matter back to court, officials said.  Mr. Berke said that account is not entirely accurate. He said between six and eight trees were cut within 650 feet to allow access to the site.  "He is trying to protect his neighbors by cutting pine trees with pine beetles," Mr. Berke said. "We don’t understand what the problem is."

Councilman Jack Benson, who represents the area, said the Hamilton Place Community Plan called for that area to remain residential. He said he favors laws that would require either new trees to be planted after property is clear cut or a development to begin immediately.

Mr. Benson said he wants the city’s attorneys to see if such a law is allowed under the state’s constitution. He said new rules are needed to protect the environment and "I don’t know how many more trees we can lose."  Councilman Ron Littlefield said council members likely will discuss the issue in his Legal and Legislative Committee meeting today at 3 p.m.  He said he is willing to consider a provision such as the one Mr. Benson favors.  "It’s a thorny and difficult issue," Mr. Littlefield said. "It requires very careful legal structuring if it is going to be enforceable."

Part of the problem is the state constitution only allows a city to issue a maximum fine of $50 for violating city law, he said.  "If it simply is a city ordinance that carries a $50 fine, we can expect developers to thumb their noses at it and move on," Mr. Littlefield said.
E-mail Duane W. Gang at dgang@timesfreepress.com