Neighbors press Horry County board after Journey Church removes large trees; options include interior buffer or trimmed buffer width

Neighbors repeatedly told the Horry County Board of Appeals on July 13 that the removal of long-standing trees behind Journey Church harmed adjacent properties and increased noise and visibility into private yards. Multiple residents described trees that they said had been in place for decades and said their removal had created persistent noise, dust and an 'ugly' view where a dense screen once stood.

Staff said the property is subject to Article 5, Section 504, which requires a 15-foot Type A opaque buffer or an equivalent double-row of evergreens. The church’s agent said Santee Cooper has denied allowing plantings within its utility easement, limiting the options for replanting in the exact former location. Board members and staff discussed three remedies: (1) require the church to move the fence 15 feet inward and plant the buffer on the outside; (2) accept plantings inside the fence and treat the fence as interior to the landscaped buffer if the board grants a variance; or (3) reduce the required buffer width at identified choke points (for example, where the building footprint or access lanes make a full 15-foot buffer impracticable) while insisting on the required planting counts and irrigation.

Residents urged the board not to treat the removal of the buffer as a minor code infraction. "This is our homes that were affected... I plead that you deny this variance because they need to replace what they took down," one resident said. The applicant’s agent said the fence was installed for child-safety reasons and that the church has tried to work with neighbors. The board allowed the applicant to submit an amended site plan showing either the landscaping inside the fence or a narrowed buffer with equivalent plantings, and staff said it would review any written denial or permission letter from Santee Cooper.

The board did not finalize an up-or-down decision on an unmodified full variance at the July meeting; instead it provided guidance on acceptable modifications and asked the applicant to return with a revised plan or evidence of permission from the utility owner. The board’s action leaves the prior denial in place until either the applicant amends the request or the board votes after review of the supplemental materials.