Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA splits decision on Covington subdivision tree variances; one variance approved, one denied
Summary
The board approved a variance for one grand tree but denied a second tree removal for a proposed 40-lot phase of the Covington subdivision after debate about alternative designs and tree preservation.
The Board of Zoning and Appeals voted April 7 on a variance request tied to phase 3 of the Covington subdivision (Bessemer Road LLC). The applicant sought permission to remove two grand trees that are located in the proposed road/right-of-way alignment for the 40-lot subdivision on Hopkins Lane in the Phillips community.
Staff said the project had gone through multiple iterations and that the developer had reworked alignment and stormwater features to preserve clusters of grand trees, including creating a community gathering area to protect four large trees. Staff also noted they received nine public comments opposing removal of the trees and cautioned that the variance may arise from the applicant’s design choices (criterion 6).
The developer’s representatives explained they had revised the layout repeatedly to avoid tree impacts but that two trees (a 14–16-inch live oak grade B and a 27-inch willow oak grade A) remained in the road alignment; one of those trees sits essentially in the proposed right-of-way for the new road. The developer and their arborists told the board that minor adjustments to sidewalks or curving the road would still require substantial grading or fill that would likely render the trees nonviable.
Board members debated whether the road alignment could be changed without losing many lots and whether the applicant’s design choices created the need for the variance. The board first voted on the top tree (the live oak located nearer the upper portion of the plan) and approved that variance by a 4–3 vote. The board then separately considered the willow oak near Lot 26 and denied that variance unanimously, citing criterion 6 (the need for the variance appeared to result from the applicant’s site layout choices).
Staff had recommended mitigation conditions if the board approved removals, including inch-for-inch mitigation plantings or fund deposit to the Charleston County Tree Fund, installation of tree barricades, and certified-arborist monitoring during construction. The approved variance (top tree) carries those recommended conditions. The denied tree removal must be avoided or the applicant must redesign the plan.
The board’s divided decision reflected competing views among members about design alternatives, lot yield, and whether the request resulted from the applicant’s choices. The applicant was informed of the board’s separate decisions and next steps for permits and compliance.
