Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA Summerville Municipal Complex Annex Building 2nd Floor Training Room January 6, 2020 at 9:00 A.M. (ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THEIR INDIVIDUAL REQUEST) For additional information regarding this meeting please contact the Planning Department at 843.851.4214. All related documents for this meeting are available for review at the Planning Department during regular business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:30 – 5:00 excluding Town of Summerville holidays and on the website www.summervillesc.gov Approval of Minutes: December 9, 2019 minutes Old Business: 1. N/A New Business: 1. 371 & 209 Winter Dr. – Removal of two Oak trees 2. 126 Wanda Dr. - Removal of One Pine tree Miscellaneous: Adjourn: Agenda Posted: December 30, 2019 Amended January 2, 2020  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, December 9, 2019 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Staff Present: Kenny Sott Jessi Shuler Director of Planning Ginger Reilly Bill Salisbury Arborist Faye Campbell David Morris Items on the agenda: Old Business: 1. N/A New Business: 1. 108 Manigault Dr.- Removal of thirteen trees 2. 104 Lowndes Ln. - Removal of three pine trees and one other tree 3. 126 Manigault Dr.- Removal of thirteen trees 4. 116 Simmons Ave. – Removal of two pine trees and one oak tree 5. 811 Wassamassaw Rd. – Removal of one pine tree 6. 23 Muirfield Village Ct.– Removal of two pine trees 7. 504 West 5th North Street – Removal of two pine trees and two Bradford pear trees 8. 511 West 2nd North Street – Removal of one oak tree 9. 102 Smithfield Ave. – Removal of one oak tree Miscellaneous: N/A The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Mr. Sott asked for consideration of the November 12, 2019 meeting minutes. Ms. Reilly made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented and Mr. Morris seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Old Business There were no items to review under Old Business. New Business 1. 108 Manigault Drive -The first item under New Business was a request to remove thirteen trees. This item was moved to the end of the meeting because the applicant was not present. 2. 104 Lowndes Lane – Removal of three pine trees and one other tree. Mr. Salisbury reported that one pine tree is within ten feet of the house and was in healthy condition. A motion was made to approve the removal of one pine tree that is within ten feet of the house. There was discussion regarding the second pine tree which was leaning towards the house. Mr. Salisbury made the recommendation to prune the lower limbs hanging over the house and have a certified arborist inspect the tree to determine the general health of the tree as well as which limbs to remove for a balanced canopy (stating no more than 20% should be removed). Ms. Campbell made the motion to approve, Mr. Morris seconded the motion to accept Mr. Salisbury’s recommendations. All were in favor. A third pine tree located in the back yard had a cavity half way up the trunk. Mr. Salisbury recommended removal of this tree. Mr. Sott made a motion to approve, Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. All approved. The last tree was a small oak less than 6” caliper and did not require a vote. 3. 108 Manigault Drive – Removal of thirteen trees requested, multi-year landscape plan was presented by applicant. Mr. Salisbury stated eleven of the thirteen trees have issues. After some discussion, Mr. Morris made the motion to approve removal of the eleven unhealthy trees. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. All approved. The two grand trees are in good health and approval was denied. 4. 116 Simmons Avenue – Removal of two pine and one oak tree. Mr. Salisbury reported that two large pine trees are healthy though one was within ten feet of the house. The water oak is located in a swale between two houses and is within ten feet of both. The applicant stated that the oak tree is impeding water drainage causing dirt to build up next to the structures. Ms. Reilly made a motion to approve removal of the water oak. The motion was seconded by Mr. Morris and the motion passed unanimously. The applicant stated if one of the pine trees was removed, the canopy will be light on one side of the other pine tree. A motion was made by Ms. Reilly to approve removal of the pine that is within six feet of the house and have an arborist prune to balance the canopy of the other pine tree. The motion was seconded by Mr. Morris and the motion passed unanimously. 5. 811 Wassamassaw Road – Removal of one pine tree. Applicant requested removal of large, healthy pine tree due to close proximity to bedroom and fear of damage to structure due to falling limbs. Mr. Salisbury reported that the tree is more than ten feet from structure. Mr. Sott asked if directional pruning would be beneficial. It was determined that it would be. Mr. Salisbury added that three trees had previously been removed during the mayor’s order. Ms. Campbell made a motion to deny the application but suggested pruning of no more than 20% as determined by an arborist. Mr. Sott seconded the motion and motional was passed unanimously. 6. 23 Muirfield Village – Removal of two large pines located close to deck. Applicant would like to enclose or put roof over deck, so looking at possibility of removing tree. Ms. Campbell told the applicant that when applying for building permit, trees would be considered at that time. Mr. Sott made the motion to deny two trees until permit is applied for. Ms. Campbell seconded, and the motion was carried. 7. 504 W. 5th North Street – Removal of two pine and two Bradford Pear trees. The applicant is requesting removal of a pine tree in the front yard in order to install a sign, with the eventual widening of Highway 78 to five lanes to consider; the removal of a pine tree in the backyard due to installation of a parking lot which would impact the trees root system, this very large pine tree is located on the edge of where a designated handicap parking space will be located. Ms. Campbell questioned the location of the handicapped parking not being at the existing driveway. She was advised that there are steps inside that door, so not feasible for handicapped parking. Additionally, removal of two Bradford Pear trees is requested due to age and poor health. A neighbor of the property voiced concerns regarding the location of the parking lot as it faces his property. He is concerned about a lack of buffer between the two properties. Mr. Sott stated that the committee needs to wait until the final site plan is submitted to make a determination on the removal of the trees. Ms. Campbell made a motion to approve the removal of the Bradford Pear trees but to wait for the final site plan to be submitted to reevaluate the removal of the pine trees. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 8. 511 W. 2nd North Street – Removal of one oak tree. The applicant has an issue with the soffit being destroyed by squirrels. Mr. Morris suggested the vents could be protected from the squirrels. The applicant stated he has already trimmed the limbs a lot due to causing an issue with the electrical wires. He has seen a squirrel nest in the tree. The electrical wires give access to the house. Mr. Morris suggested the tree could be limbed up higher to solve this problem. He also asked how do the squirrels get in. The applicant said the squirrels chew through the soffit and they have had babies in his attic. Mr. Morris stated that the tree ordinance does not have a mechanism to allow removal of a tree due to pest issues. The applicant offered to replace the tree if permission is granted; however, Mr. Morris advised that this would not be cost effective. Mr. Salisbury stated it would require about six trees to mitigate inch for inch because tree is 20” in caliper. Ms. Reilly made the motion to deny, Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. All were in favor. The applicant left the meeting very dissatisfied with this decision. 9. 102 Smithfield Avenue – Removal of one 33” caliper oak tree. Applicant reported branches are against garage roof and over house, damaging driveway, garage door cannot fully close. Mr. Salisbury stated the tree is within ten feet of the house. Mr. Morris observed from the photos that pruning of roots would not help at this point. Mr. Sott made the motion to approve removal of the tree. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. All were in favor. 2 ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM on a motion by Mr. Sott and a second by Mr. Morris. The motion passed unanimously Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair _____________________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair ______________________________________ 3  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Committee Meeting January 6, 2020 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: January 6, 2020 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Affordable Tree Service Owner: SUMMER VILLAGE MHP LLC Requested Action: Removal of two Oak Trees Location: 371 & 209 Winter Dr. Guideline Citation: UDO Section 13.9.1.G Decisions/Justifications: The TPB may approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application for the removal of a Grand Tree. No approval shall be granted unless the following one or more of the following conditions are determined to exist: 1. The Grand Tree is diseased, dead or dying; or 2. The Grand Tree poses a safety hazard to nearby buildings, utility lines or pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or 3. The Grand Tree prevents essential grade changes or all reasonable utility installations; or 4. The Grand Tree prevents all reasonable site configurations; or 5. The removal of the Grand Tree is the only reasonable means by which building, zoning, subdivision, health, public safety or other Town requirements can be met; or 6. Grand Tree is located on the construction site and up to ten feet around the perimeter of the construction site of an approved building and related driveway parking area when every measure has been explored to preserve existing trees has failed, including the reconfiguration of the building and or driving/parking areas around the tree; or 7. The lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain protected trees is considered beneficial; or 8. The removal of the Grand Tree has otherwise been approved by the Town Council. Evaluation: The Oak Tree at 371 is a 30” tree in good health. It is close to a mobile home and causing damage to the skirting. The Oak Tree at 209 is a 34” tree in good health. It is leaning some but it’s been like this for a long time the top has been growing back straight for years.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Committee Meeting January 6, 2020 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: January 6, 2020 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Daniel Wiggins Owner: Daniel Wiggins Requested Action: Remove one Pine Tree Location: 126 Wanda Dr. Guideline Citation: UDO Section 13.9.1.G Decisions/Justifications: The TPB may approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application for the removal of a Grand Tree. No approval shall be granted unless the following one or more of the following conditions are determined to exist: 1. The Grand Tree is diseased, dead or dying; or 2. The Grand Tree poses a safety hazard to nearby buildings, utility lines or pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or 3. The Grand Tree prevents essential grade changes or all reasonable utility installations; or 4. The Grand Tree prevents all reasonable site configurations; or 5. The removal of the Grand Tree is the only reasonable means by which building, zoning, subdivision, health, public safety or other Town requirements can be met; or 6. Grand Tree is located on the construction site and up to ten feet around the perimeter of the construction site of an approved building and related driveway parking area when every measure has been explored to preserve existing trees has failed, including the reconfiguration of the building and or driving/parking areas around the tree; or 7. The lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain protected trees is considered beneficial; or 8. The removal of the Grand Tree has otherwise been approved by the Town Council. Evaluation: The Pine Tree is in good health. It’s a 29” caliber and is leaning over the house.