James City County planning staff gave the Board of Supervisors an overview of the county’s landscape ordinance, its origin in past comprehensive plans and the mechanisms available to modify or enforce landscaping requirements attached to approved site plans and special use permits.

Planning staff Paul Holt told the board the county’s landscape requirements date to the 1975 comprehensive plan and that the current ordinance — in place in some form for roughly 35 years — sets minimum plant sizes, required mixes of overstory and understory trees, screening standards and a code obligation for property owners to maintain required plantings. “The ordinance also has a lot of supporting details regarding what is needed to meet the landscape standards including ensuring the plan is designed by an appropriate design professional,” Holt said.

Holt described built-in flexibility such as substitutions for design themes, credits for existing trees, reductions for small sites and the ability to limb up trees to preserve visibility and safety. He emphasized that staff is bound by code: any approved alternative must not result in a plan that is “less than” the ordinance minimums.

Board members raised practical concerns. Several supervisors said required plantings can be expensive for small or new businesses and sometimes block visibility of buildings when applied rigidly. Supervisor Larson described an example in her district where a property owner is being asked to install hundreds of additional shrubs along a long frontage; staff said an applicant may seek an amendment to SUP conditions from the board and staff could prepare an analysis comparing the originally approved plan and the current code baseline.

Supervisors and staff also discussed complementary voluntary programs. Supervisor Hippel noted volunteer work on a “tree program” and suggested incentives and targeted efforts — for example, vine removal on existing trees — may be more effective for increasing canopy than strict one-size-fits-all plantings on every site. Holt and supervisors agreed to revisit elements of the ordinance and incentives in the spring when volunteer work group findings are more developed.

No formal action was taken; staff offered to return with further information and options.