Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents call for stronger tree protections, say draft favors developers

Town Council of Awendaw · April 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Speakers at Awendaw’s public hearing urged the council to strengthen proposed tree-protection rules, criticizing the draft as a generic code that fails to account for native species, and urged measures such as protective fencing, clearer encroachment definitions and professional drafting.

Awendaw residents urged the town council to strengthen a proposed tree-protection ordinance (2026-04), saying the draft is insufficient to safeguard native species and the town’s rural character.

At a public hearing, John Baker, who identified his address as 600 Black Farm Road, told the council the draft "is little more than a generic copy of the weak urban code, not at all adequately focusing on the species native to our bounds" and said the document falls short of the town’s comprehensive plan. He urged the town to seek professional help rather than rely solely on volunteer drafters.

Supporters of stronger protections recommended technical changes modeled on nearby Charleston County: installing protective fencing around preserved trees, clarifying the definition of "encroachment," and tying protective fencing to the canopy drip line or to a diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) multiplier. Speakers also asked the council to reduce permitted encroachment allowances—citing a proposed 33% threshold—and to consider raising the protections for "grand" trees.

Those who spoke framed tree protections as tied to flood mitigation and preserving the town’s rural landscape. One commenter told the council the trees “help the flooding. They keep us rural,” and asked the body to do "a whole lot more" to protect them.

The public record on this ordinance was left open for council consideration; no final vote on the ordinance occurred during the hearing. The council closed the public hearing after receiving oral comments and the written submissions included in its meeting packet.