Speaker 4 (Unidentified speaker) presented a staff update and a revised tree-preservation draft the commission will send to county council for review. The draft, staff said, includes highlighted edits addressing commissioners’ concerns about preserving existing vegetation and changing buffer requirements for lots that face road corridors. "The edits were generated via your concerns about the trees," Speaker 4 said.

Speaker 2 (Unidentified speaker, who identified as an arborist) described vetting of a "do not plant" list with local experts and Clemson Extension’s Stephen Polman, saying items were removed and more native species were added. "I'm an arborist myself. I went through the list," Speaker 2 said, and reported that Roy Kibler, described in the discussion as a North Augusta arborist, helped refine the list.

Commissioners discussed the ordinance's central quantitative requirement: a 30% canopy coverage within subdivision common areas and buffers. Speaker 1 explained developers "would have to plant" to meet the 30% canopy and advised that developers perform tree surveys early in the site evaluation process. Staff confirmed surveys and plan sheets showing existing vegetation will be required as part of applications to prevent after‑the‑fact clear‑cutting.

To discourage pre-transfer clearing, the draft includes an enforcement measure that, if a parcel is clear‑cut before a required survey, the parcel would be ineligible for development for five years. Speaker 1 called the practice of clearing before a sale an "old trick of developers," and the commission discussed how the five‑year lock would deter that behavior.

The commission debated how the ordinance intersects with timber operations and lot‑level tree requirements. Members clarified timber crops are not covered by the preservation rules and that private yard trees required at the lot level would not count toward the 30% subdivision canopy because homeowners may later remove them. Commissioners also discussed cluster development as a method to preserve larger swaths of vegetation while allowing housing density in defined areas.

A recurring concern was mass grading, sometimes referenced as "masquerading"—large‑scale stripping and regrading that removes topsoil and increases erosion and flooding risk. Speaker 2 proposed thresholds (examples discussed included land disturbance of greater than 20 acres or concurrent grading of more than 15 lots) and recommended preserving topsoil for later replacement to reduce downstream erosion. "If the tree preservation ordinance goes through as is, then y'all will have struck a pretty large blow to mass grading," Speaker 2 said, while cautioning against measures that would make housing unaffordable.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to distribute the draft and supporting materials, mark up language on masquerading and topsoil protection, and forward the package to county council for additional technical review. The commission did not take a vote during the session.