Here is the letter from the City of Greenville declining the meager proposal by developer David Douglas of replacing tall, heritage trees with munchkin trees. The best thing about the letter is the list comparing the type and size of trees Douglas proposed to plant compared to those trees he destroyed. It’s like an obituary where you can plainly see an accomplished deceased leaving a legacy to undeserving survivors who don’t measure up.
Thanks to city officials who understand the difference.
———————————————————————-
City of Greenville
Planning & Development
April 9, 2010
David Douglas
Dougla s Wade Hampton LLC
PO Box 160
Aynor, SC 29511
RE: Violation of Conditiona l Use Permit #09 -120
25 Brookside Circle, Greenville, SC
TMS #274.4 -1-71
Dear Mr. Douglas:
This office has received your revised landscape plan submitted April 6, 2010, for the above
referenced project. We understand the revised plan to have been submitted as a proposal
for coming into compliance with the original conditional use permit after the on site
contractor removed several large trees which had been a material basis for the original
approval and issuance. This letter is notice that the proposal is insufficient and is not
approved.
The revised landscape plan proposes seven 10″ caliper trees as replacement of the six fully mature trees which were destroyed .
This proposal does not provide replacements that constitute substantial compliance with those that were submitted on the site plans and that were contained in the visual renderings that justified the issuance of a permit for the project.
Our records indicate those removed trees were:
18″ Pine, approximately 31’diameter canopy and 55′ tall:
22″ Pine, approx. 41 ‘ dia. canopy and 72’ tall;
30″ Sweet Gum, approx. 63 ‘ dia. canopy and 80′ tall;
20″ Oak , approx. 40′ dia . canopy and 50′ tall ;
36″ Sweet Gum, approx. 70′ dia. canopy and 75′ tall;
24″ Poplar, approx. 46′ dia canopy and 80’ tall.
The trees described in the revised proposal may be taller than normal for newly
planted trees in a development. However, they do not lessen the visual impact of the three
story multi-family structure in relation to surrounding structures and circumstances the way
the prior trees on the property would have done. The purpose of the multi-family design
guidelines is to reduce the visual massing of multi-fam ily developments upon surrounding
residential areas.
Recognizing the project is no longer in compliance with the permit, the City is revoking Conditional Use Permit #09 -120 based on the violations stated in the City’s April 1, 2010 letter addressed to you.
Please be advised that since the issuance of the conditional use permit for this site, City Council has amended the City’s Land Management Ordinance to City of Greenville I P.O. Box 2207 I Greenville, SC 29602 I www.greenvillesc .gov address the approval of multi-family development projec ts. Those projects are now reviewed for approval by the City Planning Commission after published notice and public hearing. You may submit an application for a new permit under the City’s current process for evaluating multifamily residential developments.
If you believe this decision is made in error, you have the right to appeal to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. An appeal must be filed in writing with me within 10 days of the date of
this letter. An appeal must state the reasons the decision is not in compliance with
applicable provisions of the Land Management Ordinance.
Bryan D. Wood, AICP
Zoning Administrator
cc: Andy Sherard, Site Design
James Bourey, City Manager
Ronald McKinney, City Attorney
