Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies request to remove 24" live oak for proposed garage at South Pinebark Lane
Summary
The board unanimously denied a variance to remove a 24-inch live oak at 1521 South Pinebark Lane, finding the proposal did not meet criteria that the need was not the result of the applicant's actions and that other options existed. Applicant argued the tree damaged the driveway and obstructed the proposed garage access.
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a request on Nov. 3 to remove a 24-inch DBH live oak tree at 1521 South Pinebark Lane to accommodate a proposed two‑story detached garage apartment.
Staff told the board the tree had been classified as a grade‑A specimen by the county arborist and recommended mitigation if removal were allowed. Heather Hall, representing the property owner and Windy City Construction, said the tree’s roots were cracking the driveway and that the proposed garage could not be accessed without removing the tree.
Board members pressed the applicant on alternatives. Several members questioned whether the owner’s prior decisions — including installing a pool and other site work — created the need for the variance. Miss Smith moved to deny the request on the grounds that the application did not meet approval criteria 3 and 6 (that the property would be unreasonably restricted without the variance and that the need was not the result of the applicant’s own actions). The motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the variance.
Miss Smith said the record suggested alternative placements or building methods had not been exhausted and that the property owner had made choices that contributed to the current conflict. The applicant acknowledged the owner had not explored every alternate garage location but maintained removal was required to avoid continued driveway damage.
What’s next: The denial is final at the BZA level; the applicant was told a reapplication could be submitted if it differed materially from the denied request.
