Products, Vendors, CAD Files, Spec Sheets and More...
Sign up for LAWeekly newsletter
?EUR??,,????'??Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth.?EUR??,,????'?? ?EUR??,,????'??+Henry David Thoreau
There may be a philosophical problem with land clearing. In fact, there are several. Perhaps the first to come to light is the question of land ownership and what a property owner can do with the land to which they own title. Many believe a landowner should be allowed to clear land, remove all vegetation, divert streams, fill wetlands, strip the topsoil, run off wildlife and extract all minerals with absolute freedom. The philosophy of some is that land is there for purposes of money.
Others think differently. Some people believe that owners of land are only ?EUR??,,????'??renting the right?EUR??,,????'?? to use property within the accepted rules, regulations and codes that are adopted locally for the use, improvement and enjoyment of the land.
Certainly, a landowner is highly restricted about turning property into a hazardous waste pit in which all manner of chemical compounds are simply dumped into the ground and forgotten. The EPA has prepared statutes that never allow such unrestricted use of land, and local zoning laws do not even address, nor allow such use of the land.
Property ownership and the use and abuse of land is something that began after the European?EUR??,,????'???s imported into this country concepts of value, ownership, property rights and other modern creations of community living. Since the 1940s this country has seen rapid population growth and unrestricted land development where many of the property abuses mentioned above went unregulated for the most part.
But new community ordinances are starting to change the way people look at land ownership and landowner rights to abuse nature for any reason. Many people believe that everyone has a stake in private property. It is becoming increasing more difficult for landowners to do as they may with land that they see as their own.
Property owners today cannot bring in heavy equipment and strip and regrade their land for development without authority. Permits have been required for years by local zoning or land development codes to prevent erosion, sedimentation and reduce impact to streams and water quality. Wetlands cannot be filled in without permits from the federal government. Wildlife habitat containing endangered species must be left undisturbed as well.
Special habitats from bedrock outcrops to coral reefs, to steep slopes, shoreline dune complexes and view sheds are being defined to cover special site conditions in many progressive communities. Green laws are being written to protect and preserve nature in the city.
But perhaps of more interest to landscape architects, planners, developers and contractors is the newest form of land regulation that prevents the removal of trees. Long overlooked as special habitat, a unique canopy resource or special climate modifier is the tree. Trees and their collective canopy are starting to be seen as unique community resources that must be protected by ordinances and development codes.
Tree preservation policies are being enacted across the country at an ever-increasing rate as cities expand and consume raw land. The basic assumption of these ordinances is that trees and canopy have value to society and do environmental work for the community as a whole, not just the landowner. Trees on private property are useful to all, as many tree preservation ordinances will claim as one of the basic principles of this type of green law. Other basic tree ordinance tenants include defining tree habitat and putting restrictions on special classes of trees sometimes called landmark, champion, ancient, or heritage trees. These special classes are defined by size, species and age. In addition, tree preservation ordinances set minimum canopy standards defined by trees per acre, DBH caliper per acre or canopy coverage as a percent of the site area. Most tree preservation ordinances define planting areas or certain parts of development sites where trees must be replanted following construction. And finally, and perhaps the most important element of this type of ordinance it sets mitigation standards for the removal of any tree from an undeveloped site. Mitigation for tree removal is implemented by one of several ways, including on-site planting, off-site planting or direct cash payment to a community tree bank or tree and landscape foundation. And finally, like many community ordinances there will be an administrative procedure involving exemptions, tree surveys, inspections, permits, planting plans, review and approval, violations and penalty.
But perhaps the newest twist to these tree preservation ordinances is that communities have at last found a way to approach the vexing problem of land clearing. Through the adoption of tree preservation policy that recognizes trees as site assets that benefits society in general, communities have found the means to control the ultimate abuse of land. Unrestricted land clearing is abuse of nature in the city. So one can clearly, and with great certainty, say land clearing and tree removal is the same thing. If you cannot curtail a property owner?EUR??,,????'???s right to clear their land, you can certainly prevent them from removing trees. We find this to be true in places such as Broward County, Fla. to Ann Arbor Michigan to Thousand Oaks, Calif., and on to Mandeville, Louisiana.
More communities should consider land clearing controls based upon tree protection and habitat preservation.
Francisco Uviña, University of New Mexico
Hardscape Oasis in Litchfield Park
Ash Nochian, Ph.D. Landscape Architect
November 12th, 2025
Sign up to receive Landscape Architect and Specifier News Magazine, LA Weekly and More...
Invalid Verification Code
Please enter the Verification Code below
You are now subcribed to LASN. You can also search and download CAD files and spec sheets from LADetails.