Lexington planning commission reviews major amendments to landscaping and tree ordinance

The Town of Lexington Planning Commission on Jan. 29 reviewed proposed amendments to the town's landscaping and tree ordinance (Chapter 156) that would extend requirements to residential development, add protections for trophy trees and create new enforcement mechanisms.

Jessica (planning staff) told commissioners that the council first directed staff to research updates on Sept. 16 and that "Town Council approved first reading of the proposed amendments and enacted the pending ordinance doctrine on January 6." She said the redlined draft in commissioners' packets aligns the town's rules with Lexington County's landscape and open-space ordinances and the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994.

Why it matters: the changes would shift administration and enforcement from parks to the planning and building department, add a dedicated landscape and code enforcement officer, and change minimum buffers and mitigation rules that affect developers, homeowners and utilities along high-traffic corridors such as Sunset Boulevard and Highway 378.

Key provisions and staff commitments - Applicability: The draft expands the town's landscape rules beyond commercial uses to include residential development; the text in the packet replaces language that formerly applied only to commercial uses. Jessica said staff would "go line item by line item" with the commission on the redlines.

- Administration and enforcement: Jessica said the ordinance's administration will move to the planning and building director (or their delegate). She also said the town has added a dedicated landscape and code enforcement position: "Shannon Smith is the employee that will be handling that." Commissioners pressed about enforcement penalties; Commission member Jared Harrelson asked, "What's gonna be the enforcement fine package to go along with all this?" Staff responded that enforcement provisions already exist in the ordinance and that officers will use a case-by-case approach for violation timelines, with initial letters generally providing 15 to 30 days to comply.

- Scenic and preservation corridors: Staff proposed incorporating a scenic-corridor map and adopting buffer rules tied to corridor classifications. The draft keeps Scenic Corridor 3's commercial frontage buffer at 10 feet (currently similar to the town's commercial buffer) and maintains a separate preservation corridor requirement that the draft identifies as a 30-foot building setback and a 20-foot buffer. Staff noted they used Lexington County's corridor overlay where it already traverses town to maintain alignment with county standards.

- Buffers and screening: The draft preserves different buffer widths depending on zoning adjacency (for example, residential vs. commercial) and keeps the rule that the more restrictive zoning or corridor standard controls where the two conflict.

- Trophy-tree protection and mitigation: The draft requires submission of a tree survey and a minimum preservation of 25% of existing trophy trees on site. Replacement plantings are to be 2-inch caliper trees; staff discussed a sample case in which removing two 13-inch willow oaks required the applicant to match "inch per inch," which would equate to 13 two-inch replacement trees when the site could not accommodate equivalent live replacements.

- Tree fund and hardship relief: The ordinance retains and clarifies an existing tree-fund provision intended as an administrative hardship option when space constraints prevent required on-site plantings. Staff said the town has created a form for applicants to apply to the tree fund; funds are to be used for public-area plantings. Staff said the program has not been widely used in the past but that the town recently received a first application.

- Species selection and over-pruning: The draft gives the ordinance administrator final authority on species selection and placement to avoid repetitive, low-diversity plantings. Commissioners also raised concerns about over-pruning by utility contractors; staff said they have established contacts at Dominion Energy and hope to coordinate on on-site meetings prior to pruning and to require clean-up obligations by contractors.

- Street trees, sidewalks and parking areas: The commission discussed recurring problems with street trees planted too close to sidewalks and with trees causing sidewalk damage. Staff said the ordinance does not currently require interior subdivision street trees (beyond entrance and gateway landscaping) and noted parking-lot requirements that ban planting closer than 4 feet to the back of a curb. Commissioners suggested adding language for tree guards or minimum distances to reduce root conflict with sidewalks and to extend certain tree-placement protections into residential sections.

Outstanding questions and next steps Staff said stakeholder meetings with developers, landscape architects, engineers, targeted community partners and utility companies were scheduled for a mid-February Wednesday (targeted date not specified in the transcript). Jessica said staff would compile stakeholder comments and present them at a subsequent work session on Feb. 18. She also committed to contacting the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) about landscaping on state right-of-way projects such as the Exit 58/Highway 1 project.

No ordinance adoption vote was taken at the Jan. 29 work session; commissioners provided direction and requested clarifications on buffers, enforcement timelines and species selection. The planning commission adjourned the work session after the discussion and scheduled additional review at the Feb. 18 meeting.