Foe says development endangers Angel Oak treeBy David Slade (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, August 7, 2008
A Johns Island woman has launched a petition drive opposing plans for businesses and 600 homes on land next to Charleston's Angel Oak Park, saying it could imperil the famous Angel Oak tree. 
Grace Beahm The Angel Oak, a live oak on Johns Island, is 65 feet high and 25.5 feet around. "I'm at Angel Oak just about every day, and I wrote my first book there, under the tree," Samantha Siegel said. "There are plenty of spaces (to develop) on Johns Island that aren't next to a cultural and historic landmark." Plans to develop the land have been under discussion for at least eight years, and the current plan received city approval last month. "It's good that people are concerned about it, but it's a shame they're coming in so late," said Nancy Vinson of the Coastal Conservation League. The Coastal Conservation League does not oppose the plan, which includes many concessions aimed at protecting the park and the tree, such as a 7-acre conservation zone, a 150-foot buffer around the park, and studies by an arborist and a hydrologist. "I think these are pretty thoughtful developers," Vinson said. "It's a very much improved plan, and we don't oppose it." Previous storyAngel Oak plan gets final approval, published July 17, 2008 The Coastal Conservation League opposed an earlier plan that called for a big-box grocery store. The approved plan eliminated the large store and added more housing. Despite coming to the issue belatedly, Siegel has been able to quickly gather more than 1,400 signatures on her online petition, which is primarily aimed at defeating a request for permission to cut down 34 grand trees on the property. "I think this is a huge wakeup call that people need to pay attention more," Siegel said. In response, the developer postponed a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on the tree-cutting request and set up a meeting with Siegel. "In an effort to educate them about the plans over the past three years, we're going to defer the issue," said Robert DeMoura of Clement, Crawford & Thornhill, a managing partner in Angel Oak Village Development LLC. "In many people's eyes — the city of Charleston, the Coastal Conservation League — this is a great plan." Siegel was able to quickly rally support by using internet resources such as thepetition site.com and a "save the Angel Oak" page on the social networking site Facebook. Among her petition signatories are many from out of state, and more than a few from other countries, some of whom left comments indicating they believe the Angel Oak itself is in danger of being cut down. The city of Charleston and the developer say a great deal of care has been taken to protect the Angel Oak and its surroundings. Plans for Angel Oak Village approved by City Council call for a densely built collection of shops, offices and multi- family homes at Maybank Highway and Bohicket Road. "In all the work on this plan, the first consideration was the protection of the Angel Oak," Mayor Joe Riley said. "You won't be able to see the Angel Oak from Angel Oak Village, and you won't be able to see Angel Oak Village from the Angel Oak." In 2005, the city pressed hard to protect the tree, threatening to buy the development property if the developers did not agree to the city's conditions. After the conditions were agreed upon, the development plans moved ahead with little opposition, until now. DeMoura said proposed tree-cutting would remove trees identified as weak or diseased by the project's arborist. He said the development was planned around healthy trees. "They protected 94 or 95 grand oaks," said Vinson of the Coastal Conservation League. "There were 34 that weren't in good shape, and those are the ones they want to take out." ANGEL OAK/ANGEL OAK VILLAGE TIMELINE 1991: The city of Charleston buys what is now Angel Oak Park, roughly 2 acres on a dirt road surrounding what's billed as the oldest living tree east of the Mississippi River. 2000: Sea Island Comprehensive Health Care, a nonprofit provider of services to low-income Sea Islands residents, proposes selling 42 undeveloped acres around Angel Oak Park because of financial problems. 2001: The state names Angel Oak South Carolina's Millennium Tree. Charleston's Planning Commission approves rezoning the Sea Island property to allow a grocery story, office buildings and apartments. 2004: Sea Island seeks bankruptcy protection. In September, the city announces a plan to acquire 16 acres around Angel Oak Park for $1 million as part of a $3.5 million purchase of the entire property by Greenville developer Robert S. Small Jr. That deal falls through, and the land is bought by a different developer. 2005: With the sale of the land pending and Sea Island's bankruptcy reorganization hanging in the balance, Charleston insists on greater protection for Angel Oak than proposed by the buyers. The city threatens to buy all the land if the potential developers don't agree to concessions. After days of contentious public hearings, a deal is reached calling for a 150-foot buffer around Angel Oak Park, a 75-foot natural buffer along unpaved Angel Oak Road, an extra level of city review as the development proceeds, a 7-acre conservation zone around the park, and the hiring of a hydrologist and a tree expert. The development would include a large grocery store, shops and 285 housing units. 2008: Developers of what's become known as Angel Oak Village return to the city with revised plans that eliminate the big-box grocery store and increase the number of housing units to 600. The Planning Commission endorses the new plan and City Council approves it, over the course of three public meetings in May and July. In late July, Samantha Siegel launches an online petition drive opposing the development. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 22 comment(s)
Posted by lemonhead on August 7, 2008 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
they worry about a TREE???? sure its a living thing.. but what happens when that treee goes down and injures someone,what will they say then,i notice that people here worry more about their property then someones life,bond for damaging property 200,000 bond for killing 2 kids,15,000 how do they figure that
Posted by BillyG on August 7, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey lemonhead, I'm sure when you look at the giant Angel Oak Tree (http://www.scangeloaktree.com/) that's been around for almost 1,500 years and multiple natural disasters (Chas. 1865 earthquake, Hugo...), you have to agree that it isn't going to fall on somebody's head, and it'll probably be here long after we're gone.
Posted by Barry on August 7, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Using the logic of the lemonhead (he should have chosen cabbagehead because he demonstrates the same reasoning ability) comment we should immediately cut down all the trees because they might fall and injure someone. Next we should take down the historic landmarks in downtown Charleston because bricks might come loose during an earthquake. The only safe course I can see is to let developers pave the earth and make a giant parking lot so we can all feel safe.
Posted by wpc3iop on August 7, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barry: You are being awful tough on lemonhead...
Posted by ColdBeer on August 7, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The tree should be protected but it sounds as if the development plans do just that. If Samantha Siegel doesn't want the land developed, she should buy it. Put up or shut up. Professional protesters suck.
Posted by icbmman on August 7, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree ColdBeer. This really is another case of some environmentalist-leaning dolt who has no concept of the plans to build near a park with careful consideration to the natural surroundings. A 150-foot buffer is the equivalent of the Francis Marion Hotel lying on its side. That's a HUGE buffer. The woods will be dense enough to prohibit observation of any nearby houses. Anybody with half an intellect could figure this out.
I get the feeling that some Johns Island residents just get bored living out in the woods, so protesting anything and everything is their only lively social activity.
Posted by drp7773 on August 7, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems I remember when the original owner of this land with the tree was going to sell King Riley stepped in and said nooo and bought the land decleraing this land has to be protected because of the tree, and now lo and behold lets pave all the streets and put up a parking lot mentallity what changed Riley? Could it be taxes , money, greed, just wondering.
Posted by greyrider on August 7, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate to show my age, but reading this article, I seem to remember Farrah Fawcett talking about trees in one of the Cannonball Run movies.
Posted by suec on August 7, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They are not building a "parking lot". Stop being so overly dramatic.
Unless you live in a tent or a tree house, I wonder how many trees were plowed down to make room for your home.
The developer has planned around the tree, probably at a large expense, yet people are still crying as if he is cranking up the chain saw.
Posted by ColdBeer on August 7, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Farrah Fawcett talked? I never noticed.... :)
Posted by iceman1978 on August 7, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
greyrider, That was in the first Cannonball Run movie. I have it at home. It's a classic. The opening segment with Adrienne Barbeau in the Lamborghini where they spray-paint an X over the 55 mph speed limit sign is the best.
You can have development that blends in with the natural surroundings. Look at Daniel Island as an example. There are grand oaks everywhere. Our neighborhood on James Island has grand oaks.
It's been a while since I've been out to Angel Oak. Maybe I should take a drive out there sometime.
Posted by icbmman on August 7, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The Cannonball will fall to the forces of Islam! My dear sister...I pledge it! Drink! DRINK!"
Posted by HighDef on August 7, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
does johns island have any other landmarks besides being one of the oldest rice field sites ? Angel Oak apartment complex here we come, affordable housing for the immigriant workers at Kiawah ! 600 duplexes will never look nice next to Angel Oak
Posted by iceman1978 on August 7, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
icbmman:
"This is for you AND the judge!!"
"200 mph and they're not going to get a second glance."
Posted by icbmman on August 7, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Classic, iceman. Just classic.
Here's another quote:
"Two priests...driving a Ferrari..."
"They're doing the work of the Lord. In a Ferrari, they can just do it faster."
Posted by oldglory on August 7, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL@CB
Thank goodness, CB, has returned to make me laugh each a.m.!
Posted by mkris on August 7, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just be thankful the developers and city aren't cutting the tree down.
Charleston and Charleston County are all about making things simple for the developers so money can slosh around.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 7, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
icbmman, And who could forget the crazy doctor that Burt Reynolds and Dom Delouise had in the ambulance?
Posted by icbmman on August 7, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah yes, Doctor Van Helsing, Professor of Proctology and other related tendencies...LOL, he was great.
Posted by rollo on August 7, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CB, as I read the article, I get the same idea. It sounds as if Seigel thinks writing under the tree gives her some propriatory interest!
I climbed in it when I was young, partied under it when I was a little older, now that my own mortality is ever more evident, I respect it more.
But, no one will ever really own it, nor will anyone ever consider destroying it. It will pass when its' time comes.
Posted by LEYH on August 8, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, there will be many with no respect for her and would love to climb her and spray paint her. There could be 2,000+ people living in walking distance of her. That old fence can not keep anyone out. The developer is targeting people who work at Kiawah and Seabrook. They want to bus them to and from work. Have you seen the proposed site plan? I have. The bus stop is right up against the buffer. With the increased traffic, delivery trucks for the retail space, bus, people, etc. This could turn out to be a noisy little park instead of the quiet secluded area it is in now.
Posted by Oceanlover on August 8, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't know if y'all have ever seen a 150 foot buffer, but I'll tell you what a 100 foot one looks like. Just drive past the walmart off Porcher's Bluff and 17. All along 17 is a 100 foot buffer and that shopping center is plain as freaking day. Again, great job P&C for reporting on this issue so thoroughly so late in the game.