When I was elected Mayor in 2010, the Town's Tree Ordinance defined "grand tree" as any oak tree with a diameter of 24 inches or more. This is at "breast height" which means 4 feet up. Stand in front of the tree, and if it is 2 feet or more wide, it counted as a "grand tree."
This ordinance had been adopted by the Town in 2007, when it adopted its zoning ordinance. The same size had applied in the area of the Town between 2004 and 2006, when it was under the jurisdiction of Charleston County. The 24 inch size for "grand tree" still applies in the unincorporated areas of James Island under Charleston County jurisdiction. The City of Charleston also defines "grand tree" as 24" or more in diameter.
When the Town was closed in 2011, all of the Town reverted to Charleston County jurisdiction. The 24 inch definition continued to apply. When the Town opened again for its fourth and final incorporation in 2012, the Town's previous zoning ordinance was adopted and the 24 inch definition continued.
In 2013, Town Council changed the definition of "grand tree" on a 3 to 2 vote from 24 inches to 18 inches. Councilman Blank and I voted against the change.
I believe that change was a mistake, and I favor returning to the 24 inch rule that has applied to James Island for decades. The only other time that a different definition applied on James Island was in Town 2 for two years between 2002 and 2004. During that short period, the definition of "grand tree" was 12 inches. I was on Town Council at the time and voted against that change as well. When that Town was closed down, it reverted to 24 inches under Charleston County jurisdiction. When the Town was formed in 2006, I didn't run for Council and the former Chair of the Town's Planning Commission, Leonard Blank took my place. He, along with the Mayor and the rest of Council, who had voted for the 12 inch definition in 2002, voted to continue with the County definition of 24 inches rather than return to the 12 inch definition that had existed for two years, two years earlier. Councilman Blank was well aware of the application of the definition when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission. He believed it was unworkable.
There were two other changes made by Town Council in 2007 that made the Town's tree regulations out of line with those of other jurisdictions. The Town's tree regulation only applied to oak trees. Further, all other tree regulations that applied to new development were removed, leaving only a prohibition on removing grand trees. While the first change was intentional on the part of that Council, I believe the second change was unintentional and implemented by the Town's planning consultant.
In 2013, the Town's rules were adjusted so that trees 8 inches or greater are protected in new development. These rules limit how many trees may be removed in a new development. Further, all trees other than pines, sweet gums, or invasive species, such as Chinese Tallow (popcorn trees,) are protected.
In the Town of James Island, the "grand tree" ordinance is almost entirely enforced against individual homeowners who want to remove a tree from their own yard. This is because there is little vacant land in the Town of James Island. Nearly all of James Island in the Town is already "built out" in single family homes. Nearly all of the new development on James Island is in areas annexed to the City of Charleston. No Town regulation, including for trees, applies to new developments in the City of Charleston.
Fortunately, if a "grand tree" is dead or dying or an immediate safety hazard, the Town's Planning Director can issue a permit for a homeowner to remove it with a modest fee of $25. However, if there is some doubt about the health of the tree, the homeowner must hire an arborist which is more costly. Worse, any other reason for removing a tree from your own yard requires that a substantial fee be paid--$250 for one tree and $50 for each additional tree. This is because the Town must post signs and put an ad in the paper. Then the homeowner must appear at a meeting of the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals and ask permission to cut down the tree. If the BZA decides to permit the removal (which it might not,) mitigation must be paid, which is even more money. And, of course, cutting down a tree is expensive anyway. Failure to follow this procedure results in a hefty fine and much more mitigation, generally costing thousands of dollars.
This is all true for trees greater than 24 inches. Reducing that to 18 inches just adds to the burden on homeowners. My personal view is that a homeowner should be able to make normal landscaping decisions in their own yard. Government regulation should only be for a very good reason. I understand that there are special trees on James Island that most residents want to see protected. However, I do not believe that treating average trees as "grand trees" is appropriate. The change in the definition of "grand tree" from 24" to 18" created an unreasonable burden on homeowners by increasing the number of average trees on James Island that we pretend are "grand." I think it is past time to reverse that change.
Why would anyone want to impose this unreasonable burden on average homeowners on James Island? The advocates of pretending average trees are "grand" imagine that they can use this to stop development on James Island. In 2013, a major residential subdivision was started in the City of Charleston off Secesionville Road. The developers cut down most of the trees on the property. A former member of the Town's planning commission actually said that she supported the change in the Town's definition of grand tree in response to something that happened in the City of Charleston.
I heard the same thing just a few weeks ago. I asked a current member of the Town's Planning Commission, "How many new developments have we had in the Town," and that person said five or six. I asked again, "in the Town?" Oh, those were all in the City.
Imposing especially strict regulations on homeowners in the Town cannot possibly limit development in the City of Charleston or in the unincorporated areas of James Island under County jurisdiction. Reacting to excessive development in the City of Charleston by imposing an additional and excessive burden on homeowners in the Town of James Island is both unreasonable and unfair.
We have had two new residential developments in the Town since I have been Mayor. The total number of houses is 43. There is very little vacant land left under Town jurisdiction. Focusing on new construction when considering the definition of "grand tree" just doesn't make sense in the Town of James Island.
I think we should have a definition of "grand tree" in the Town of James Island that is reasonably consistent with the definition of "grand tree" that applies to our neighbors in the unincorporated portions of James Island and in the City of Charleston. Homeowners in the Town should not have to pay thousands of dollars because they try to do what their neighbors do in the City of Charleston or in the unincorporated area.
No comments:
Post a Comment