All I want for Christmas is a tree ordinance

At some point, Sussex County elected officials are going to come to grips with the fact that hundreds of acres of trees are being cut down each year to make way for development.

The cumulative effect of clear-cut woods over the years is taking its toll on the area, and it's unnecessary because county officials can control it.

When a development is approved, it's typical for the developer's attorney or engineer to say that preservation of woods on a property is important and only the absolute minimum number of trees will be cleared.

Talk is cheap because there is nothing in county code that can hold a developer's feet to the fire. There is rarely mention of specifics and there is nothing to stop developers from clear cutting property removing every twig and branch.

So, when county officials start to make a list – and check it twice – of new ordinances for the 2018 comprehensive land-use plan, a tree preservation ordinance should be included.

If a 50-acre parcel has 20 acres of woodlands, a developer could be required to “specifically” preserve at least half of the acreage of woods. If that can't be done, a developer should be required to fund the planting of trees in other areas of the county or at the very least, contribute the value of the cleared trees to go toward future open space purchases in the county.