Policy on tree removal should be made clear

It’s not called “Ocean Pines” for nothing. When the idea of the planned community was conceived in the late 1960s, its developers, Boise Cascade, wisely concluded that a peaceful bayside residential development in the woods would sell better under that name than it would as a 3,000-acre project known as “Ocean Clear-Cut” or “Ocean No-Pines.”

That, however, was before people discovered that nature can be unruly, doesn’t observe property owner preferences and, worse, makes no provision for a waterfront view.

Admittedly, the above is a little snarky, but that’s where we are as society these days, as the fight continues between the live-with-nature bloc versus the nature-must-live-with-us segment.

In between these two positions is where Ocean Pines Association officials find themselves, as they attempt to deal with complaints about clear-cutting lots, while also trying to reconcile the realities of blending residential development into a wooded environment.

Unfortunately, their desire to work with the county government to effect a clear policy on tree removal doesn’t give them much to work with, since it sometimes appears that county officials aren’t as certain as they should be about what the state’s Critical Areas waterfront and watershed regulations require.

Ostensibly, the law calls for a buffer of vegetation between cleared ground and the water, although exceptions are permitted and some aspects seem subject to interpretation. It’s been said that’s because the law is so complicated that most people don’t understand it or its exceptions.

What this suggests is that if the OPA intends to align its tree-removal policies with those of the county, then the county is obligated to make sure its position on these regulations is clear and that its enforcement efforts are consistent.

The rebuttal to the argument that the law defies understanding doesn’t cut it. As has been said many times, ignorance of the law is no excuse.