Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA allows one tree removal and one encroachment for Elms Glen subdivision with mitigation conditions
Summary
After the developer narrowed its requests, the Board approved removal of one grand tree and an encroachment on another at the Elms Glen subdivision entrance, subject to mitigation, protective barricades and arborist monitoring; two other tree removal requests were withdrawn.
The Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals approved, with conditions, a narrowed tree-impact request for the planned Elms Glen subdivision: the developer will remove one designated grand tree and will be allowed to encroach on the critical root zone of a second grand tree at the neighborhood entrance, provided mitigation and protective measures are implemented.
Stanley Martin Homes’ representatives told the board they had revised their initial application and withdrawn two previously requested removals after additional field review; the remaining requests involve tree removal necessary for site access and road construction at the Van Osen Road entrance and an encroachment on a large live oak within the proposed entrance island. Staff had initially found the application did not meet several approval criteria but did recommend specific protective and mitigation conditions if the board approved removals or encroachments.
The board approved the requested removal and encroachment by majority vote with conditions recommended by staff. Those conditions include: a mitigation requirement totaling 125 inches DBH of replacement canopy (which may be satisfied by planting trees and/or payment into the Charleston County Tree Fund under Section 9.2.0.6 of the ZLDR), installation of protective tree barricades within 40 feet of areas of disturbance, retention of a certified arborist to monitor and treat impacted trees during construction, and a three-year mitigation requirement if the encroached live oak dies after construction.
Developer representatives said the encroachment and removal are associated with a required second access for emergency response and with necessary on-site infrastructure (roadway and utilities). They also said the project will plant a large number of replacement trees (they estimate at least 712 trees across the development) and that they had revised the plan to save two of the originally proposed removal trees.
Why it matters: The decision allows a major residential subdivision to proceed with a second vehicular access and roadway improvements while imposing mitigation and preservation obligations intended to reduce long-term loss of tree canopy.
Staff will require a mitigation plan, tree barricades, an arborist monitoring plan and proof of mitigation (planting or fund deposit) before approving construction permits; the board’s written order and staff tree-impact reports will be included in the public case file.
