This letter concerns a tree removal ordinance that was adopted by the Jackson Township Council on Aug. 11. The basic premise of this ordinance is flat-out wrong. The introduction of the ordinance under section 100-1, Intent and Purposes, states, "Thus, the Township Council desires to regulate and control indiscriminate and excessive cutting of trees within the township..."

I believe this concern is directed at the trees that are cleared for the development of residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial site plans.

The truth is that all of the tress that are cleared for approved development is at the direction and supervision of the Planning Board engineer in the design stage and the township engineer in the construction phase.

The biggest factor in determining the number of trees that are taken down is the percent of grade that is required to achieve positive drainage of surface water away from the new structures. A seemingly simple change that was made a few years ago by the Planning Board engineer to change that grade from 1 percent to 2 percent dramatically increased the number of trees that had to be taken down.

This little change significantly increased the distance of the clear smoothly graded slope from the edge of the structure to meet the edge of the wood or property line.

The goal of the ordinance to save and replace trees is admirable and the governing body should be commended for trying to achieve that end. However, this ordinance does not act as a deterrent to development. This ordinance does contribute to making the cost of a new home and commercial and industrial development more expensive.

The manner in which the clearing areas that are exempt from fees is determined is inherently unfair.

In the case of residential development, the ordinance basically allows up to 20,000 square feet of clearing for lot sizes up to 40,000 square feet (approximately 1 acre). The 20,000 square feet certainly is large enough to accommodate most houses that are built on that lot size.

However, in the case of larger lot sizes, things are spread out over a larger area. Once the new resident is getting established and wants to enlarge his yard, such as putting in a pool, they then get hit with fees for trees that they own in order to improve their property.

In the case of commercial and industrial development, this ordinance is especially severe. The tree ordinance allows the same exempt area of 20,000 square feet as it allows for residential development. This exempt area is totally unfair because especially with industrial development, the minimum lot area is 2 acres (87,120 square feet).

The zoning ordinance allows up to 75 percent of impervious lot coverage, which is 65,340 square feet. The tree ordinance will assess fees for clearing 45,340 square feet of an approved site. The net effect of the tree ordinance is to increase the price of commercial and industrial development to the detriment of new businesses that are trying to locate in Jackson.

The ordinance as approved does not meet the governing body's expressed desire to "regulate and control indiscriminate and excessive cutting of trees within the township." This ordinance does not meet its stated purpose because the cutting that is subject to this ordinance is taking place with the approval and supervision by the Planning Board and township engineers.

I recommend that the governing body review what they are really trying to accomplish with a tree ordinance. This ordinance does not accomplish the stated goals. In addition, the ordinance does create a significant hardship on individual residents and does act as a deterrent to new commercial and industrial development.

I suggest that the Jackson Township Council suspend this ordinance and create a committee that includes members from the Planning Board, the environmental commission, the shade tree commission and members of the public. The purpose of the committee will be to create a revised ordinance that will protect our trees in a manner that is fair and equitable to our residents and will promote and encourage new commercial and industrial development.

Bill Fox

Jackson