COASTAL OBSERVER

Members of the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals last week denied a request to remove a water oak to allow two additional townhouses to be built in the Majestic Oaks development in Murrells Inlet.

There are already three clusters of townhouses on the property – and fourth about to be completed – and the request was for one of three additional clusters that are permitted. The proposed building could be moved or one of the units could be eliminated in order to save the tree, according to a report from county staff.

Sam Glass, with Majestic Oaks Development Co. in Floral Park, N.Y., said when they started the project more than a decade ago, they could have built 50 units. They cut back the development, he added, by adding a pool and common areas to “beautify” the property. 

The company’s goal now is to build 29 units. Fifteen are completed; five more are under construction.

“We tried every way of going about it in order to remove only one tree,” Glass said. “We’re asking that because of the economics.”

Board member Kenneth Reed asked Glass how many units could be built without removing the tree.

Probably 27, Glass said.

“If you don’t get tree relief you’ll gonna lose two units?” Reed asked. “Is that what you’re saying?’

“Yes. The land cost a lot of money,” Glass said. “Remember we were supposed to build 50 units originally. Imagine.”

Glass recalled that land cost around $3 million 15 years ago.

“When you’re talking about economic hardship you’re talking about that,” he said.

The company had to spend $850,000 on a stormwater and infrastructure system, Glass added.

“The money has to come from somewhere,” he said.

Glass asked the board to take “economic need” into consideration and grant the variance.

Cindy Person, chief counsel for Keep It Green Advocacy, who represented some adjacent landowners, told the board that economic hardship may not be considered.

“Truly the bottom line here is economic hardship and that is not something you are not permitted to consider,” she said.

Sandra Bundy of Murrells Inlet, a former Planning Commission member, said she appreciated the economic issues, but pointed out that this was not an affordable housing development.

“These units are not affordable units for anyone,” she added.

Brandon Elvis of Venture Engineering, the agent for Majestic Oaks Development, told the board that in the last two years they’ve had to raise the new building – and any future buildings – because of a change in federal flood regulations, and move a secondary construction driveway 180 feet at the request of the state Department of Transportation.

Because of those factors they’ve had to change the design plans and could not come up with a way to save the tree.

“Removal was the best option,” Elvis said. “This is a water oak, not a live oak. We are protecting all the live oaks on the property.”

Board chairman Will Moody asked Kristal Infinger, the Georgetown County zoning administrator, if the applicant met any of the criteria required to approve the variance and if the ordinance allows the board to consider economic hardship when considering whether to grant a variance.

She said the answer to both questions was no.

The property owners can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court.

The board also unanimously approved a request to remove a 24-inch diameter live oak to allow the construction of an office building off Highway 17 near the Litchfield by the Sea entrance. 

Michael Walker of Tych & Walker Architects, who designed the building, said if the tree is not removed the developer would not be able to provide the amount of parking required by the county.

Infinger told the board if the tree is not removed, the lot will be unbuildable because it can’t meet other county regulations. She also said the applicant revised its plan several times to try to protect the live oak.

Walker confirmed that by showing the board several plans he came up with while trying to protect 10 trees on the site.

Another 24-inch diameter “triple intwined grand” live oak on the property will be saved by constructing a porch on a pier system to create a “tree well” and not dig into the ground around the tree, Walker added.

The two requests were the first to be considered since the county amended and strengthened its tree protection ordinance last year.

To get a variance, the applicants have to show the tree is a hazard, that removing it is the only way to comply with another regulation such as stormwater or parking, or that “reasonable use of the property would be significantly impaired” by keeping the tree.

The new ordinance also allows county staff to vary building setbacks by up to 50 percent in order to protect trees. 

A variance on the setbacks still didn’t help preserve the oak on the Litchfield project.