Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edgefield planning panel debates tree-preservation, limits on mass grading and expanded landscaping rules
Summary
The Edgefield County Planning Commission discussed a proposed tree-preservation ordinance, potential mass-grading limits and countywide landscaping/buffer rules — citing watershed and flooding concerns — and asked staff to return with draft language and examples from other jurisdictions.
Get email alerts on the Tree Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Edgefield County Planning Commission spent the bulk of its Aug. 8 meeting debating a proposed tree-preservation ordinance, whether to restrict mass grading, and how to expand landscaping and buffer requirements for commercial development and major subdivisions.
Commissioners and staff said the goal is to preserve large, native trees that are not commonly replanted, such as magnolias, and to require replacement where removal is necessary. "If you cut down 16 inches of magnolia tree, you gotta put 16 inches worth of magnolia back on the property," said Speaker 3, who urged species-specific replacement rather than swapping in less-suitable ornamental trees. Staff proposed using a native-species list drawn from professional landscaping associations as part of any ordinance.
The discussion linked tree protection to limits on mass grading — the practice of flattening large tracts to ease development. "You can't mass grade if there's a tree in," Speaker 3 said, arguing that mass grading undercuts true preservation. Speaker 7 warned that other counties that allowed mass grading have seen new flooding in areas that previously drained naturally: "We're seeing in other counties where they've allowed masquerading, they're having flooding issues in areas they never had flooding issues in before." Speakers emphasized the Stevens Creek and Shaw's Creek watersheds as locally important.
Staff and commissioners discussed scope and exemptions. Possible approaches included applying requirements countywide except for agriculture or exempt minor subdivisions, or limiting rules to planned developments and major subdivisions. Staff noted that state law exempts lots of 5 acres or larger that do not create a road from county development regulations; commissioners discussed thresholds for triggering landscaping requirements (for example, existing language applies to large retail sites with 10 or more paved parking spaces).
Practical enforcement and establishment carried significant attention. Commissioners wanted irrigation or establishment plans for newly planted trees and tools to ensure replacement when trees die; staff cited existing stop-work authority for noncompliant landscaping in overlay districts. Staff committed to gathering model ordinances and visual examples from other jurisdictions and promised to send commissioners a proposed species list for review. "I'll start. I'll send you what I have," Speaker 2 said, referring to example lists and images.
Next step: staff (named in the meeting as April) will compile sample ordinances, a species list and photographs for commissioners to review at a future meeting; no formal ordinance was adopted and no regulatory changes were sent to county council at this item. The commission signaled it expects a multi-step drafting process before any rule is finalized.

