Jump to content

Greenville County needs a tree ordinance

mcashlv

By mcashlv
in Greenville

Recommended Posts

NYTransplant Burg

NYTransplant

Posted
Posted

If other HOA's are like my HOA, you can't plant anything without submitting a pile of paperwork and express written approval from the HOA's ACC. :wacko:

I've actually got a poplar that I'd like to have removed and I'd like to replace it with a couple of maples.

I live in a neighborhood where they didn't just clear-cut, then build. The HOA has strict rules against cutting down trees. As far as planting, I don't remember reading any restrictions pertaining to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

People in Greenville are opposed to it. THey don't wnat to be told what to do with their property. Its not developers so much as the individual property oweners. Upstate Forever has been working on this issue tirelessly and has faced much resistance on such a seemingly simple issue.

If you have ever been to a county council meeting where this was on the agenda, you would not say this. The Developers and the County councilmen are opposed, but I would not describe the general population to be opposed. I expect this will be the chief issue in the next round of council elections. Council members Kingsbury, Bedingfield and Gilstrap will be the targets.

I can accept exceptions for industrial type properties and the like, but to clear cut for a housing development is not defendable IMO. Clear cutting lessens the value of the lots, while creating erosion, flooding, pollution and a hotter climate.

These ordinances are only for developers and commercial properties. An individual homeowner would not fall under the proposed ordinance. Kiawah's situation is more anaolgous to a gated subdivision than a city or county.

Greenville can become another sprawled, ugly, Atlanta mess if it wants, but I think there is a better choice.

Jacksonville requires certain trees (pines, for example are excluded) over a certain diameter, that are not within the footprint of the building, to be preserved or replaced on the site. If the owner chooses not to replace them on-site, he can pay the city to replace the trees elsewhere. Initially, this applied to all commercial property only. Builders resisted attempts to make housing development conform to the same requirement. The city council would not approve that, so the residents petitioned for a referendum requiring it. It passed with 76% of the vote. The Builders association fought it in the courts, but were not successful.

Driving through that city you frequently see huge Live Oaks dispersed throughout the parking lots of strip centers and office buildings. The parking areas are cooler and the appearance is much more lush and appealing.

Due in large part to the funds paid into this municipal fund, over one million trees were planted in just eight years. And that was BEFORE the requirements were placed on housing developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TREY Whistle-Stop

TREY

Posted
Posted

A watered-down tree ordnance was passed in Greenville county in 2002. This was finally passed after Cherry dale was build. The story that I remember was that originally Cherry dale was to be landscaped but after the developer realize we had no tree ordinance he deleted all landscaping. Upstate forever has good information on this ongoing discussion. I found this article linked on their web site.

GREENVILLE -- Greenville County Council voted Tuesday night to require developers to plant trees whenever they build a new parking lot.

By a 9-to-3 vote, council members approved a landscaping ordinance that has been in the works for several years.

The regulations require one tree for every 20 parking spaces.

Some council members argued that the regulations would hurt redevelopment efforts and take away a property owners' rights.

But the ordinance's supporters said that those who held up the process may face voters' wrath.

"I still think there is going to be some reckoning in November because of certain people who have held it up," Greenville County resident Linda Sisson.

Dozens of vocal supporters came to Tuesday's meeting in support of the proposal.

"This is why it passed, because these people came out and supported it so much," Councilman Cort Flint told News 4.

Dissenting council members said that rather than regulation, they wanted to provide incentives for businesses to plant trees.Upstate forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoy Town

btoy

Posted
Posted

I love trees. They are attractive, and make areas feel more pleasant and settled. I am also perplexed at the number of neighborhoods built without any significant trees around. I personally wouldn't want to buy a lot/house that had been cleared of its trees. Makes no sense to me.

With that said, I don't think any government has a right to tell someone what they can do with their own, private property. Incentives are fine for developers, but when someone is paying their own money for land that is exclusively theirs, they should have the right to cut down (or leave) as many trees as they wish.

One other thing to think about, alot of neighborhoods, not all, but many, are built on old farms. They were just pasture before houses were built, so there were not trees to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chickenwing Hamlet

Chickenwing

Posted
Posted

If you have ever been to a county council meeting where this was on the agenda, you would not say this. The Developers and the County councilmen are opposed, but I would not describe the general population to be opposed. I expect this will be the chief issue in the next round of council elections. Council members Kingsbury, Bedingfield and Gilstrap will be the targets.

I seem to recall when Hayne Hipp ran against Scott Case (last year?) that he made this issue a central part of his campaign. He was defeated pretty handily.

I remember that the tree ordinance was starting to gather steam about the time we built our offices. I also remember being opposed to it at that time, because it would have cut the size of the building that we could build on our lot. We needed the space, but what would have caused problems was the obscene number of parking spaces that the county required for the square footage. Never have they been filled. We would have lost parking spaces to trees. No problem really for us, but tell that to the county who gives out the building and occupany permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcashlv Whistle-Stop

mcashlv

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I seem to recall when Hayne Hipp ran against Scott Case (last year?) that he made this issue a central part of his campaign. He was defeated pretty handily.

I remember that the tree ordinance was starting to gather steam about the time we built our offices. I also remember being opposed to it at that time, because it would have cut the size of the building that we could build on our lot. We needed the space, but what would have caused problems was the obscene number of parking spaces that the county required for the square footage. Never have they been filled. We would have lost parking spaces to trees. No problem really for us, but tell that to the county who gives out the building and occupany permits.

Right on! Excess parking requirements are one of the factors that could be reduced to mitigate historic tree preservation costs. I believe the public would willingly accept this minor inconvenience as 'payment' for saving the trees. We must stop being absolute slaves to automobile considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

I seem to recall when Hayne Hipp ran against Scott Case (last year?) that he made this issue a central part of his campaign. He was defeated pretty handily.

I remember that the tree ordinance was starting to gather steam about the time we built our offices. I also remember being opposed to it at that time, because it would have cut the size of the building that we could build on our lot. We needed the space, but what would have caused problems was the obscene number of parking spaces that the county required for the square footage. Never have they been filled. We would have lost parking spaces to trees. No problem really for us, but tell that to the county who gives out the building and occupany permits.

Scott Case represents the Bob Jones district. Being an extreme conservative on every issue is an unwritten requirement to win that district. Bob Taylor represents a similiar district. Other than those two districts, the residents are more moderate.

I fail to see how a tree ordinance would reduce the size of a building. The parking requirements are a different story. Perhaps developers would be more willing to save trees if the parking requirements were more flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chickenwing Hamlet

Chickenwing

Posted
Posted

Scott Case represents the Bob Jones district. Being an extreme conservative on every issue is an unwritten requirement to win that district. Bob Taylor represents a similiar district. Other than those two districts, the residents are more moderate.

True. Very true.

I fail to see how a tree ordinance would reduce the size of a building. The parking requirements are a different story. Perhaps developers would be more willing to save trees if the parking requirements were more flexible.

Exactly. Because of the large number of parking spaces, there was no additional lot space for trees. Were trees required, along with the number of parking spaces, then the building would have to be smaller to accomodate both of these circumstances.

I think what we really need to be complaining about here is huge empty parking lots that create sprawl, water runoff, and a whole host of other problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvlcondos Unincorporated Area

gvlcondos

Posted
Posted

Scott Case represents the Bob Jones district. Being an extreme conservative on every issue is an unwritten requirement to win that district. Bob Taylor represents a similiar district. Other than those two districts, the residents are more moderate.

I fail to see how a tree ordinance would reduce the size of a building. The parking requirements are a different story. Perhaps developers would be more willing to save trees if the parking requirements were more flexible.

Scott Case does not represent the "Bob Jones" district. Case represents the Taylors area which includes many neighborhoods such as Pebble Creek, Half Mile Lake, Montebello, and the Paris Mtn. area. Even if he did represent the "Bob Jones" district, what do trees have to do with Bob Jones? Have you seen the trees on their campus? They have preserved more trees than any developer has thought about.

Bob Taylor does represent an area with a heavy concentration of BJU affiliated people. In fact, BJU is in his district and he works there.

I think this argument boils down to whether or not you believe the government has a right to tell which trees you can cut down on your own property. I think a majority of people in the area would favor incentives to keep trees but certainly not mandates.

I think Case and Taylor represent their constituents well in that matter by not voting for tree ordinances that restrict property owner rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

Scott Case does not represent the "Bob Jones" district. Case represents the Taylors area which includes many neighborhoods such as Pebble Creek, Half Mile Lake, Montebello, and the Paris Mtn. area. Even if he did represent the "Bob Jones" district, what do trees have to do with Bob Jones? Have you seen the trees on their campus? They have preserved more trees than any developer has thought about.

Bob Taylor does represent an area with a heavy concentration of BJU affiliated people. In fact, BJU is in his district and he works there.

I think this argument boils down to whether or not you believe the government has a right to tell which trees you can cut down on your own property. I think a majority of people in the area would favor incentives to keep trees but certainly not mandates.

I think Case and Taylor represent their constituents well in that matter by not voting for tree ordinances that restrict property owner rights.

I stand corrected on which district BJU actually lies in, but the reality is these are the two most conservative districts on the council. Bob Jones is not anti-tree per se, but they do oppose virtually any restriction or limitation to property rights. That is what I was referring to.

Representing your constituents is not just reflecting the majority opinion of the moment. A good representative votes based on what is in his constiuent's overall BEST INTEREST. The folks getting flooded out of their homes from stormwater runoff probably didn't support development controls, UNTIL the results of not doing so started to fill their Living rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
silverseale Whistle-Stop

silverseale

Posted
Posted

Whenever the tree issue comes up, I always think of what a great thing Greenville Hospital System did by putting in all those trees (most if not all maples, I believe) at the Patewood campus on the Eastside. I don't know that any governing body required them to do it.

I frequently drive by their campus on Pelham Rd. as I conduct my daily business and it's such a pleasure to watch the trees change with the seasons. GHS's decision has certainly impacted my quality of life for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GvilleSC Megalopolis

GvilleSC

Posted
Posted

Whenever the tree issue comes up, I always think of what a great thing Greenville Hospital System did by putting in all those trees (most if not all maples, I believe) at the Patewood campus on the Eastside. I don't know that any governing body that required them to do it.

I frequently drive by their campus on Pelham Rd. as I conduct my daily business and it's such a pleasure to watch the trees change with the seasons. GHS's decision has certainly impacted my quality of life for the better.

I agree! They have made that campus beautiful!

I hate getting off 385 from Greenville onto Woodruff Rd and if you look left, all you can see is sprawl. You can see past Walmart because there's NO trees, only fast food resturants, cars, pollutions, and strip malls. :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gs3 Metropolitan Area

gs3

Posted
Posted

Whenever the tree issue comes up, I always think of what a great thing Greenville Hospital System did by putting in all those trees (most if not all maples, I believe) at the Patewood campus on the Eastside. I don't know that any governing body required them to do it.

I frequently drive by their campus on Pelham Rd. as I conduct my daily business and it's such a pleasure to watch the trees change with the seasons. GHS's decision has certainly impacted my quality of life for the better.

I totally agree with you! silverseale! Can you imagine what this will look like years down the road? This will be a wonderful shady midtown area, with a tree lined shady expressway running by. So glad both the GHS Patewood area and 385 medians were planted! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
silverseale Whistle-Stop

silverseale

Posted
Posted

I totally agree with you! silverseale! Can you imagine what this will look like years down the road? This will be a wonderful shady midtown area, with a tree lined shady expressway running by. So glad both the GHS Patewood area and 385 medians were planted! :thumbsup:

Agreed, and will add to the property's value down the road IMNSHO. I'm thrilled that so many Greenvillians have cared enough to come out in support keeping the "green" in Greenville via tree ordinance. And that's part of what's so special and unassailable about it--these are *local* people caring, people who remain stakeholders in the community after the developers are long gone.

Having a beautiful and appealing community is simply not going to happen by itself. I hope that all will come to understand that in time.

I was really very pleasantly surprised to see landscaping put in on 385 ( :lol: even though it contains some of the much-vilified Bradford pears, I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.