Parking Lot in lieu of Trees?

[Darryl Parker]

The USPS for Matthews 28105 has purchased the land next to their facility. I have heard several rumors in the last few weeks that this area is intended for a parking lot and all of the old growth trees there will be lost to this development. At the pace of tree loss in our town, can we afford to lose these trees simply for parking?

If you don't think it can be done, just look at the recent development done near the intersection of Hwy 51 and Sam Newell Rd. The rumor was that a few trees were to be spared, but when you drive by today you will see it has been completely stripped of its vegetation. I did not see, however, the large growth trees similar to what I see on the USPS property.

I've seen it time and time again in the last 20 years where developers come in and completely destroy the landscape only to come back upon completion of the work and plant a few small trees to replace the oaks and maples that give our area such beauty all year long.

What do you think?

[Dan Yurko]

Commercial development will always be present and is usually found in concentrated areas; in other words, it’s zoned for this type of use. I think most cities do a fairly good job of controlling and concentrating commercial areas. I believe that total clearing of land, like many companies do, is not necessary. There are more than enough vacant factories and buildings that can be re-furbished or re-designed for continued use. However, it is my understanding that it is more “tax efficient” for companies to build new than purchase and re-furbish old. Upon moving to Indian Trail, I immediately noticed the vast number of home developments just outside the city and in the surrounding countryside’s. The development where I reside continues to clear-cut land at an alarming rate; stripping the trees off to sell for lumber and further pushing our wildlife into the city and outer, safer areas. I think I would be more concerned with home developments swallowing up the trees and fields before the commercial issue.

[Debbie Foster]

As I understand it, the federal government is not bound by our tree ordinance - legally. HOWEVER, there are many other considerations here. Just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it. This doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

[Darryl Parker]

I think planning plans a role. In many cases, they could save them if they wanted too but the short-term financial gain/savings win. I am glad to hear the folks at the old Suzuki/Yamaha place are planning on keeping many of those trees. They obviously understand the expense of time and the high replacement costs associated with the age of these highly aesthetically pleasing trees and have figured out a way to work with them.

[Debbie Foster]

There's a community in GA called Peachtree City. It was originally developed as a planned community for Eastern Airlines employees (if I remember correctly). It has really strict standards, a lot like Davidson. Has it hurt this community? Heck, no! People are thrilled to live there. We could take a page from their book.

Could we give some sort of tax incentive to a company that refurbishes an empty space rather than creating a new one? We have a ridiculous number of empty buildings in this area - some of them have been vacant for quite a while.

[Linda Hendley]

Is the parking so bad at the USPS that they need to expand the parking lot? I've been by many times during they day and there is never a problem parking. Do we really need to clear more trees for this?

[William Cooper]

In principle Darryl, I agree with you. However, the issue I have really had is when townships get way too anal about trees. Case in point, when I lived in New Jersey, I had a conservation easement that had old trees, lots of vines, and was a sight for sore eyes. I wanted to bulldoze it, but offered to replant the entire easement with new trees and shrubs. However, my town was more concerned with keeping a tree census to maintain their "Tree City USA" distinction and denied the claim. Of course after I moved, the guy who bought my house said "the heck with it" and did it anyway....

Now I do think this needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I think my situation in New Jersey was different than the scenario above.

Another comment, I travel to many customers and in many cases, there just is no parking. A lot of times this is because of the greenery and trees that were around. Now, I'm not advocating bulldozing every tree and building parking either - the bottom line is these things need to be considered when zoning permits are handed out.

[Adam Brooks]

i don't know if trees where the only issue here. we lack parking in the downtown area. we also lack land in the downtown area. so, in response, we put in more paved flat area? what about a deck to alleviate some of the parking needs for the community? also, remember that decks are not the same structures that we know from decades ago, they can contain retail, offices, community common space, etc. it all seems like a waste to me.

[Nancy LaFond]

The parking lot will be used for USPS employees, with the town having access during special events (i.e., Matthews Alive!). In my opinion, one symbol of success is how quickly you outgrow your parking area (or your office space). Fortunately for Matthews, the USPS has outgrown their employee parking -- which is behind the building.

The lot will not be closed to the public, but there will be signage informing customers that the lot is for employees only.

[Ralph Messera]

To follow up on Nancy's comment, the PO will retain many of the trees in the front of the lot, Concentrating the parking to the rear, but the do have to install storm water retention in the front of the lot, in addition to the parking. For those interested, you can review the approved plan on the Town Website. Go to the Planning section, then the link to approved plans. Finally, with the financial condition of the USPS at the current time, I'm not sure this project will proceed anytime in the near future.

[April Ferry]

Personally, I don't see why the USPS feels the need to expand and cut down trees that bring us oxygen and take in the carbon dioxide that our cars emit.

[Erin Monahan]

Hmmm... once upon a time I'd have said the need for parking trumped the need for trees. Now, my views have changed. We've got to stop bulldozing and paving every available piece of land - convenience should NOT be the only consideration anymore. I hope there is some answer to this that doesn't involve the destruction of yet another area of old growth trees.

[Nancy LaFond]

I certainly appreciate the sentiment of "Why is the USPS doing this?" and "We need to keep the trees." What everyone needs to realize are these two things -- first, and most important, the USPS owns the land. We do have a tree ordinance so there can be no clear cutting (as we saw on Weddington Road a little while ago) by the owner of the property, but, it is still their land. It would be the same for a private citizen. If you buy land with the intent of eventually building a house, then you try to build your house but everyone is complaining because of the trees, what are you going to do? Do they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do on your property? No.

Second, thankfully, this is a busy post office. Not only do the customers have difficulty parking on occasion, but the employees have run out of parking space. I cannot remember how many people are employed at that location, but I do know it's surprisingly more than I thought.