[non-anonymous]

"Significant Environmental Areas and Natural Resources Standards." Is that the one?

I read some of the draft, and it seems clear that while it does apply to all 5-acres-contiguous plats within the crucial habitat zone, it's only triggered upon new development (granted, this does include altering vegetation, which seems pretty strict). I don't see where it requires otherwise idle landowners to re-vegetate or re-habituate their property, but hey, I didn't slog through it all.

[alfons]

However, this is in conjunction with other ordinances that do exist where for example no trees could be removed which is one of the ordinances that exist and several others. The issue is Does the government have a right to tell proerty owners to set aside so much land when that land can be developed? Is not the landowner the true conservationist? After all, if the landowner does not maintain his land, the value of his property will obviously drop. As long as the landowner does not infringe on the rights of others, he or she should be able to do with the land what they please.

[alfons]

Again, this ordinance if approved will be part of already established ordinaces