City Dwelling Ordinance Advocates Stunned by Defeat
The comprehensive tree ordinance that advocates claimed was needed
to protect Greenville County trees from destruction by uncaring
developers went down to defeat Tuesday, November 20th with a tie-vote
by 12 members of Greenville County Council.
A public hearing had been held on the proposed ordinance two weeks earlier with each side of the issue limited to 30 minutes to express their views.
The outspoken advocates for the ordinance were mostly city dwellers that were concerned that without a restrictive ordinance to protect trees, rural areas of Greenville would be stripped of foliage, ruining the beauty of the landscape, depriving human and animal life of shade and oxygen and depriving birds of a place to build their nest. Those speaking in opposition generally considered the ordinance to be unnecessary and an unconstitutional intrusion on property rights.
Speakers in opposition to the ordinance were mostly rural land owners who plant, cherish and protect trees, but do not want powerful special interest groups, motivated by greed and political power, to force the creation of laws to restrict their neighbor’s use of their own property.
No public comments on the ordinance were permitted during the November 20 meeting in accordance with Council policy that forbids discussion of a proposed ordinance after a public hearing has been held.
The ordinance had been drafted by a hand-picked committee, described as diverse, but in the end unanimously agreed that they all supported an ordinance to protect trees. were mostly city dwellers.
Prior to the second-reading vote, Chairman Butch Kirven made a passionate appeal to Council members to support the proposed ordinance. Kirven presented amendments to the ordinance designed to make rural property owners feel more comfortable with the new law that would not apply to property owners who never developed, built on or modified the landscape of their property.
In part, Kirven’s amendment stated that “By this ordinance, it is the policy of Greenville County to regulate specific aspects of land development pertaining to clearing and removal of trees for the purpose of protecting and preserving established healthy trees where possible and practical, to assure the planting of trees, the replacement of trees lost due to development and maintenance after planting, and to provide public education on the benefits of trees, tree conservation and tree care.”
Kirven’s amendment states that the ordinance does not apply to property not being developed, or in the process of being developed” when the ordinance goes into effect.
Kirven’s amendment was approved unanimously by the Council, but the change did not seem to influence the final vote.
Fred Payne proposed amendments that failed to gain enough votes for approval by Council. Willis Meadows proposed a new ordinance totaling less than four pages that would require each new single dwelling on a lot of less than 15,000 square feet “shall have two deciduous or evergreen trees measuring at least 1.25 calipers. A single family dwelling constructed on a lot larger than 15,000 square feet will have four such trees.
The Greenville County Code Enforcement Division would not issue an occupancy permit until the trees are planted.
Under the Meadows proposal, no voluminous regulations would be created and no new bureaucracy required for administration and enforcement of the ordinance. It was not approved by Council.
Payne announced that before the meeting, someone from his district handed him a list of more than four hundred names of people opposed to the ordinance.
“When I ran for County Council I promised to be the voice for the people in southern Greenville County in District 28.My challenge at this time is to be their voice on this tree ordinance.
“Everybody I know is for trees. People point out to me that there are more trees in Greenville County today than there were 50 or 100 years ago.
“As one might expect, my district includes three subdivisions in Simpsonville, two in Mauldin, and one in Fountain Inn. It includes a wide variety of opinions and most of them express those opinions. You have heard the expression ‘between a rock and a hard place,’ ‘damned if you don’t and damned if you do.’ I’m sort of in this kind of situation.”
Joe Dill said the proposed ordinance does not address the tree cutting by Duke Power and the amount of arborist time that would be required to coordinate with Duke Power and other agencies cutting trees.
Lottie Gibson offered a motion to delay the second reading vote until the next board meeting. Her rationale was that several changes had been made since the last meeting and with the addition of Kirven’s amendment; Council members needed an opportunity to read the final document before voting.
Rejection of her motion by the Council leadership may have prompted Gibson, a Democrat, to break from the Democrat/RINO (Republican in name only) coalition, and vote against the ordinance, killing the proposed tree ordinance after a two-year process had progressed to within two votes of final passage and becoming law.
Butch Kirven, Judy Gilstrap, Tony Trout, Jim Burns, Xanthene Norris, and Cort Flynt voted in favor of the tree ordinance on second reading.
Those voting in opposition to the tree ordinance on second reading were Joe Dill, Lottie Gibson, Sid Cates, Willis Meadows, Fred Payne and Bob Taylor.
Advocates of the ordinance appeared stunned and angered by its defeat and walked out of the Council chambers in the middle of the meeting making it necessary for Chairman Kirven to call a recess for the noisy crowd to clear the Council chambers.
The next regularly scheduled meeting of Greenville County Council is set for Tuesday, January 8, 2008. It is expected that tree ordinance advocates will be doing whatever it takes to persuade Gibson to change her vote and ask for the ordinance to be voted on at second reading during that early January meeting.
Majority rules on Greenville County Council and a swing vote by Gibson would provide the 7 votes needed for passage on second reading.
|
