Environment
Penalties kick in even as council defers update to tree rules
Tougher penalties for cutting or damaging protected trees will go into effect even as Georgetown County planning staff revise the ordinance to reduce protection for trees in the western part of the county.
“The main emphasis here is the increase in the fee,” said Holly Richardson, the county planning director. “The goal here is deterrence.”
The current fine of $500 for cutting a protected tree will increase to $500 for every inch of trunk diameter. If the trunk and the stump have already been removed, the fine will be based on the diameter of a “grand tree”: 24 inches.
“It’s a significant jump,” Richardson said. But she added that it is modeled on the fine in other areas, including the town of Pawleys Island.
The planning staff proposed amending the tree ordinance after a 42-inch oak was cut on a vacant residential lot at North Litchfield. The fine was $500.
“We have clearly seen that is not significant enough,” Richardson said.
In addition to the fine, the county can withhold permits for building and development for two years on sites where protected trees are cut.
County Council deferred the second of three required readings of the ordinance last month in order to hold a workshop on the amendment. After the workshop this week, the council again deferred second reading, but it voted to invoke the “pending ordinance” doctrine.
“What I’m concerned about is someone getting wind of what we’re trying to do,” Council Member Clint Elliott said.
The tree ordinance has different protections for the Waccamaw Neck and the western part of the county. Council Member Raymond Newton said he wanted the list of 11 protected trees in the rural areas reduced to one: live oaks. And he said he wants to make sure that a 24-inch grand tree doesn’t stand in the way of developing industrial sites like the nearly 2,000 acres the county owns on the Sampit River outside Georgetown.
“Do you realize how many grand trees are on that property?” Newton asked. “If you have a company that’s going to invest $500 million, you can’t tell them no because of a tree.”
On the Waccamaw Neck, trees with trunk diameters of 10 inches or more are protected except for a handful of species including palmettos, myrtles and pines.
Council Member Bob Anderson wanted to add longleaf pine to the protected list. Those were once protected, but were removed from the list in a previous amendment. They were once the dominant species in Southeastern forests.
“I would like to try to protect what we’ve got left on the Waccamaw Neck,” Anderson said.
Council Member Stella Mercado said reducing protections in the rural areas could cause problems as development increases.
“The developer could theoretically clear cut 2,000 acres,” she said. “I just think there are unintended consequences.”
Mercado also pointed out that the tree cover has an impact on stormwater retention.
Elliott suggested raising the diameter of protected trees in the rural areas from 10 to 15 inches. “That way it has to be a larger, more impactful tree,” he said.
Newton suggested a limit on clearing for development.
“Clear-cut’s a bad word here,” Anderson said. “I know I’m walking on glass.”
Richardson said the ordinance could add a restriction on cutting for development. (Forestry and farming are exempt from the ordinance.) Or the county could require trees be retained in buffers around large tracts.
“I think that’s what’s most alarming to people,” she said.
Becky Ryon, North Coast director of the Coastal Conservation League, said she supports the proposed amendment with its tougher penalties. She pointed out that all trees have benefits for habitat and stormwater, even if they don’t have other qualities worth protecting.
“We want to make sure we are protecting our native trees especially,” she said.
Max Jones, a Realtor who specializes in commercial properties, said he is concerned that the rules for grand trees could make it impossible to develop some commercial lots.
“I’m all for saving live oaks,” Jones said.
Grand trees cannot be cut on non-residential lots without a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Richardson said that can’t be guaranteed, but one of the criteria is that the tree makes a lot unbuildable.
