Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, October 5, 2023 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Ovita Thornton1 Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager John Spagna, Building Permits & Inspection Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Mike Wharton, Sustainability Office Stephanie Green, Sustainability Office Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the September 7, 2023 minutes. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Examine modifications to the code of ordinances related to invasive plant species, specifically identify means by which bamboo and other plant species in the ordinance can be mitigated Assistant Manager Jones introduced the topic and shared the Mayor’s charge. He shared that there were potentially two distinct aspects that could be captured under this charge from staff’s perspective, and he requested feedback from the Committee on their thoughts. The two potential aspects outlined were:  Public nuisance of invasive plant species and how they might impact neighbors; and  New developments and preventing new plantings of invasive species. Assistant Manager Jones explained that the public nuisance aspect of invasive plant species would consider enforcement of invasive plants, whereas the prevention aspect would likely involve the zoning code. He shared that staff previously discussed a number of questions in preparation for the LRC meeting. He noted that we do have a list of invasive plant species in Clarke County; however, in the Code of Ordinances, there is no definition for invasive plant species. He shared this may be something for the Committee to explore moving forward. When considering which plants to focus on, the Mayor’s charge specifies that the Committee should focus on bamboo; however, the Committee may also consider Category 1 or Category 2 invasive species. 1 Arrived at 1:22 p.m. Left at 2:02 p.m.  Assistant Manager Jones also shared some of the overall challenges and problems that invasive plant species can create, as well as the role of local government. Some of the issues that invasive plants cause includes native plant diversity loss, the cost of removing invasive plants manually or chemically, destroying trees and creating erosion issues. Ultimately, there is also a financial impact. Assistant Manager Jones explained that there are a number of roles that local government can play, but, today, our role is enforcement (to some extent), reducing new plantings of invasive species through the zoning code, education, and removal of invasive plants on ACCGov property. When it comes to neighborhood complaints, it is a complaint-based process. The number of complaints Code Enforcement has received regarding invasive plants over the past several years has been low, and he noted Code Enforcement would share more about that with the Committee. He also encouraged the Committee to consider the role of local government in regards to invasive plant species in the County when determining the desired future state. Commissioner Wright shared that she believed this topic was last discussed in Committee during the overgrown lawn topic in 2017. John Spagna explained that, since the ordinance was updated to address overgrown lawns, Code Enforcement has had between 500 and 600 cases; typically, about 100 cases of overgrown lawn complaints a year with most occurring in the spring and summer. He noted that, when he went to further analyze the complaints they received for overgrown lawns, only about a dozen of the complaints received by Code Enforcement specifically call out an invasive species of some nature. He explained that kudzu, English ivy, and bamboo were the three invasives that Code Enforcement have dealt with previously. In regards to the English ivy, he explained that they have had about three cases where people have started to allow the ivy to grow up onto their house, which is prohibited in the ordinance. In all three cases, Code Enforcement was able to get the residents to clear the ivy. Kudzu is prevalent throughout the county, and John Spagna explained that Code Enforcement sometimes receives complaints regarding commercial lots that may not be managing their kudzu. In these cases, similar to the English ivy, Code Enforcement has been successful in having the property owner knock the kudzu back to be in compliance. There was also a case regarding bamboo in Five Points, where four or five residences were impacted by this strand of bamboo; it came to Code Enforcement’s attention by the complainant that did not want the bamboo on her property. He explained that, because of the way the Code of Ordinances is written, they investigated the complaint but upon review with the Attorney, it was determined that the case could not be pursued due to the specific language regarding bamboo that was missing in the ordinance. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that there are two parts of the Code of Ordinances that potentially speak to this issue. The first is Control of Vegetation in Section 3-5-9. She explained that the definition of weeds in this section is not ideal, as it is not as specific as it could be. The definition currently excludes trees, ornamental plants, vegetable gardens, and managed natural landscapes; their interpretation is that bamboo, despite being a Category 2 invasive plant species, is an ornamental plant, which is excluded in this section of the ordinance. She further noted that the second section of the Code of Ordinances that may potentially speak to this is Nuisance Abatement, which relates to undesirable vegetation, in Section 3-13-7. This section does not speak to any growth of vegetation that occurs on a lot that the person does not own. She also shared that the definition of undesirable vegetation is found in Section 3-13-2, and she expressed concern regarding how broad the definition of undesirable vegetation is currently written. She explained that there are some communities that have passed ordinances related to the planting of invasives, including allowing it to encroach on to another person’s property; however, she explained that she wanted to be very clear from the beginning of the discussion that it is unlikely that an ordinance passed now is going to address the problem that the complainant has in Five Points, because we cannot make something unlawful retroactively. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 100523  Commissioner Wright inquired about the section of the ordinance that would discuss that vegetation could not extend into another residents’ property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that there is not currently a section that specifically covers it. John Spagna clarified that if Code Enforcement receives a complaint regarding ivy or other vegetation that they can clearly show to be encroaching on a neighbor’s property, they can tell the owner to knock back the vegetation to keep it off the neighbor’s property. He further explained that the difficulty with bamboo is that it can transcend multiple lots, and it can be difficult to clearly determine the original source of the bamboo for enforcement purposes. As such, it is difficult to tell everyone that they have to remove any bamboo from their own yard under the current ordinance. Stephanie Green shared that there are several types of bamboo. The one that usually is the nuisance is going to be one that spreads by underground roots. She explained that the only way to determine where that bamboo started would require you to know the neighbor who planted it or review aerial imagery over years to look for the signature bamboo. Bamboo will spread from all directions, but it might grow faster one direction than another. It would be very difficult to determine where the bamboo originated from without a lot of investigative work or someone admitting that they planted it. Commissioner Houle explained that, when they searched the Code of Ordinances, the word “invasives” shows up in multiple other sections of the code as well. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that all the other references to “invasives” in the code are related to zoning, including site design standards and not planting invasives in open spaces; to the best of her knowledge, there is not a definition for invasives. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in learning how this affected that as well and inquired about whether or not the Committee needs to develop a comprehensive definition of invasive first and foremost. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines agreed that the comprehensive definition of invasives would be helpful to have. She noted that people think Category 1 and Category 2 invasives are the ones to prioritize, but she explained that it is important to remember that these include a lot of plants that are commonly sold in stores and that people like to plant as shrubs or hedges, like privet or nandina. Commissioner Houle noted that the plants referenced in the zoning code are already inconsistent, with Section 9-14A-13 referencing prohibition of kudzu, Chinese privet, and Japanese honeysuckle, whereas Section 8- 7-19 references English ivy, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and other invasive or non-invasive plants. They suggested the Committee move the discussion forward by considering which plants make sense to include, and then, from there, they can determine how to enforce them, so it can apply to all of these different code sections. Assistant Manager Jones explained that the challenge is that the Category 1 and Category 2 invasives include those that are sold by stores. Commissioner Wright requested staff review the zoning codes that were referenced by Commissioner Houle for consistency. Commissioner Thornton inquired about any anticipated potential community pushback regarding this, given stores and retailers are selling some of these invasive plant species. Assistant Manager Jones explained that he did not know the answer, but staff did discuss what Florida did in regards to retailers. Stephanie Green explained there are models across the country and some groups in Florida that have successfully gone to the big box retailers and gotten them to sign on to an agreement that they would not sell any of the Category 1 or Category 2 species in their stores. She shared that she believes with education that could be done in our community to a certain point, but it would not guarantee that every one will do it; you would also need to factor in that the person ordering may not actually know what they are ordering as a Category 1. There would need to be education also on the consumer side. She advised that it would need to have an educational campaign and get local stores to agree that they understand why they should not sell the invasive plants and that they agree not to sell them. Commissioner Thornton shared that she believes the education piece should be one of their first steps to educate the public. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 100523  Commissioner Myers explained that she is also thinking about the nuisance part of the issue, and she would like clarity on how and when it would be enforced; if the invasive plant species are controlled on a property, would it still be allowed to be planted on your own property? Stephanie Green explained that this is exactly the type of question that will need to be discussed, as the types of invasive plant species that are being discussed would operate as a nuisance in different ways. Bamboo is not going to magically appear two blocks down, because a resident planted it in their planter; it spreads underground and not by seed. Privet, on the other hand, will appear two – three yards down or half an acre over depending on where the bird went that ate the seed. She explained the answer to Commissioner Myers’ question would be dependent on the problem the Committee desires to solve. Stephanie Green also noted that the categories of invasive plant species are designed on the aptitude or the way that species is a threat to natural environments and can spread. She further clarified that bamboo is a Category 2 species, because, while it is a threat and will completely change the ecosystem, it does not spread by seed and requires it to be intentionally planted somewhere to start with. Privets are in Category 1, because, once they are present, they will go wherever the seed happens to end up. Mike Wharton noted that these categories come from the Georgia Invasive Plant Council, so there are definitions of what invasive plants are and help shape the discussion to provide the framework; this is a State-maintained list for the most part. He also explained that there would need to be a two-pronged educational component; we would need to education and inform the big box stores, but we would also need to educated the constituents that we have in the community and provide an alternative. We do have local nurseries and growers that are also interested in growing natives if they can sell them. Mike Wharton also noted that, in discussion with Cooperative Extension, they shared they would love to work with staff to develop an educational process that explains alternative plants for consumers to select. It would take time and resources to put together, but it could be done. Assistant Manager Jones also shared that education is currently a role that the local government provides through Sustainability Office, Landscape Management, Leisure Services, and Cooperative Extension. Commissioner Wright explained that she was grateful for that information and that we are working to remove invasives on our own property, as she believes it will be important when rolling this out to the community that we are modeling the behavior we are seeking. Mike Wharton shared that there is a physical and financial impact of invasive plant species. One example discussed regarding the physical impact is that invasive plant species tend to have shallower roots, which cause erosion and lead to more sediment in drinking water. Assistant Manager Jones inquired about how much was approximately spent a year on clearing invasive plant species. Stephanie Green shared that in Fiscal Year 2023 they spent approximately over $35,000 for invasive species removal and treatment on less than 200 acres. She also explained, since 2020, they have spent at least $37,500 to clear and treat invasives in Dudley Park, and this does not take into account the in-kind donations of volunteer labor. Commissioner Wright requested clarification on whether the official term that should be used in crafting the definitions should be “non-native” or “invasives”. Stephanie Green shared that, at this point, the generally acceptable term is “invasive”. She also explained that they could provide a very solid definition of what is meant by invasive species that is accepted by the general professional and scientific community that many other municipalities are using. Commissioner Thornton explained that if there is an educational component that is presented, she does not believe that we should overlook that as we move forward in discussion. She suggested it be for residents and retailers. Assistant Manager Jones explained that staff would come back with an educational strategy at the next meeting. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 100523  Commissioner Houle suggested, when considering the list of things people can plant intentionally within the zoning code and removing those that are invasives, that the Committee consider adding Category 3 as well. They shared that Category 3 plants were defined as exotic plants that are minor problems in Georgia natural areas or is not yet known to be a problem in Georgia but is known to be a problem in adjacent states. In thinking ahead about future impact, they did not believe we should allow people to intentionally plant these invasives either. They inquired if there was a reason to not also remove those. Stephanie Green explained that the list of invasives is revised regularly to reflect future needs. They are not large changes, but as things evolve, the list will be updated to reflect those changes. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not there was a way for the ordinance to be written in a way that refers to the categories within the list rather than listing the specific plant species. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines confirmed that it could be written in that manner. Commissioner Houle inquired to the Committee if they would be open to including Category 3 in addition to Categories 1 and 2. Commissioner Wright requested the Committee learn more about the categories at the next meeting, so the Committee will know where they fit in. Commissioner Houle explained that they believe, in regards to the first portion of this issue regarding the definition of what should be prohibited from being intentionally planted, that we should be as comprehensive as possible in not allowing the intentional planting of things that are even minor problems, because they may become major problems down the line. On the nuisance abatement portion of the issue, they explained that they felt the Committee needed to have a discussion on how enforceable it really is, because, if it seems performative and creating a situation where there is no meaningful way to enforce this, we may need to get away from the enforcement piece and focus on education. Commissioner Wright shared that she believes that the nuisance issue of having something detectable growing from one yard to another is a little different than bamboo complaint in Five Points discussed earlier. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines requested clarification from the Committee on what they would like to see within the ordinance. She explained that she reviewed some ordinances from other jurisdictions, including Brookhaven. Brookhaven have defined invasives as the list, so they have included as far as she can tell even the Category 4 plants. Brookhaven’s ordinance, however, is a little different in that it just says that they have to be maintained; it is not a prohibition on planting. If would be enforced if the invasive plant escapes the property line. She requested assistance in knowing the interest in having example ordinances for not planting, prohibition on encroachment, and whether we want to prohibit the zoning and development piece. There also could be ordinances regarding plantings on our own property. Commissioner Wright shared that she liked the way the examples shared capture maintained versus escaped. Commissioner Myers requested some examples of ordinances that are reasonable in regards to new developments. Assistant Manger Jones explained that, in the zoning ordinance, there is likely a list of allowable plantings that can be modified to remove the invasive plant species, but he would need to confirm. Commissioner Myers expressed interest in learning more about that, and Assistant Manager Jones explained staff could provide that. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not there was something already in the zoning code that requires developers to remove invasive species when developing property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines shared that she was unsure if we already had that provision, but she could share that other communities, like Atlanta, do have that included. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in adding this requirement as well. Mike Wharton shared that staff has discussed previously the possibility of providing incentives for developers to remove invasives. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on the kind of cost that we would be adding to the developer if we add in this additional requirement to develop property. Commissioner Wright requested some examples to assist in the discussion at the next meeting. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 100523  Assistant Manager Jones summarized next steps for staff to provide at the next meeting, including:  Definition of invasive species that we would use throughout the Code of Ordinances;  List of plant categories for invasive plant species;  Education plan on how we would approach informing people about invasive species;  Staff recommendation on how we would enforce and what would be enforceable; and  Tree and plant list that is in the zoning code. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that she will bring example ordinances from other jurisdictions in Georgia and some other regional resources. D. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 100523