Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Awendaw subcommittee begins overhaul of tree-preservation ordinance, weighs species lists and tougher penalties
Summary
At a town subcommittee meeting, residents and staff urged clearer rules, native-species lists and stronger enforcement for a proposed tree-preservation ordinance; staff recommended starting edits from the redlined first-reading draft and returning with paragraph-by-paragraph changes.
Resident Lynn Vickery urged the committee to protect trees when new, smaller lots are developed, saying, "Some of those vested lots are as small as 9,068 square feet," and warning that typical home footprints, driveways and septic systems limit which trees can survive on those parcels.
Planning staff said there are three versions to consider: a staff-and-council redline first-reading draft, planning commission recommendations and a staff-edited version. "The 1st reading version was a combination of staff edits and then also town council edits," the staff member said, and recommended using the redlined first-reading version as the working draft for committee edits.
Committee members and presenters discussed technical and practical trade-offs for the ordinance. A presenter noted landscape designers often lack horticultural training and suggested listing species suited to local conditions rather than leaving choices to generic guidance. Staff and members raised soil suitability and coastal wetland considerations: in wet sites, bald cypress was suggested over live oak or sycamore for mitigation plantings.
On enforcement, committee members pressed for stronger penalties. One member urged penalties beyond fines, such as suspension of building permits for violations, saying developers often treat fines as a cost of doing business. Staff warned the ordinance language must be precise to avoid disputes that turn on competing expert opinions; the staff member said licensed arborists may ultimately be needed to determine whether a tree qualifies for removal under the ordinance.
Committee discussion also covered mitigation approaches. Some members recommended scrapping the existing mitigation table in favor of on-site retention credits verified by site criteria (referred to in the meeting as "Nelson's criteria"). Others preferred a clear, simple native-species list and incentives for removing invasive species to earn mitigation credit.
The committee asked staff to pull referenced resources — including a local tree canopy study, Clemson Extension materials and guidance from nearby towns such as Mount Pleasant, Charleston County and Somerville — to inform a practical species list and any overlay maps that would recommend species by soil and context.
No vote was taken on the ordinance at the meeting. Members agreed a subcommittee and staff would prepare paragraph-by-paragraph edits to the first-reading redline and return with a draft for public discussion; the group tentatively planned a follow-up meeting for the week of the 17th.
The meeting closed after a brief procedural motion to adjourn.
