Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, February 10, 2020 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Ginger Reilly Faye Campbell David Morris Peter Wallace Staff Present: Jessi Shuler Director of Planning Bill Salisbury Arborist The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Ms Reilly asked for consideration of the January 6, 2020 meeting minutes. Mr. Morris made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Old Business There were no items to review under Old Business. New Business 1. 85 Avonshire – Removal of one oak tree Mr Salisbury reported that this is a healthy tree that had blown over during Hurricane Matthew. Ms Reilly questioned why was the request made to remove the tree. The applicant responded that the roots are a tripping hazard. Mr Wallace asked if it would be possible to stake the tree. Mr. Salisbury explained that the ground at the base of the tree is not loose and the tree and ground around it appear to be stable. The applicant offered to replace the tree if allowed to remove it. Mr. Morris asked what type would be required as a replacement. Ms Campbell said it would need to be a canopy tree. Mr Morris stated since it has previously blown over, he agreed it could be removed if replanted. Ms Reilly made a motion to allow removal and replant in kind. Mr Wallace seconded the motion with the stipulation to replace the tree with a 3” caliper canopy tree within six months. The motion carried. 2. 204 Bamert - Removal of four pine trees and one pear tree The applicant was not in attendance. Mr Salisbury explained the reason for the request for removal is the applicant has plans for a shed and fence to be built in the future. No permit has been applied for currently. He is also concerned about storms. The only issued is a spot on tree #1 about 35’ up. Ms Reilly made a motion to deny four pine trees that appear healthy and approve removal of the Bradford pear tree due to age and species. Mr Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried. 3. 12 New Haven Court – Removal of three pine trees The applicant was not in attendance. Mr Salisbury explained the three trees in the front yard appear healthy. The applicant had hired a tree removal company who indicated that the trees have pine bark beetles threatening the tree. Mr Salisbury found no evidence of beetles. Mr Wallace made the motion to deny removal of the three healthy trees. Ms Reilly seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4. 214 Challedon Drive – Removal of five pine trees Mr Salisbury reported the five trees are in good health but that #4 and #5 are within two feet of an accessory structure. Tree #1 splits at the top but appears healthy. Ms Reilly asked for the reason for the request of removal of trees #1-#3. A tree company had advised that #1 is close to the house, takes up the whole yard, sways in the wind and has roots going toward foundation. Mr Salisbury reported this tree is 18’ from house. Mr Wallace suggested allowing for removal of trees #4 and #5 due to proximity of shed with concrete foundation; however, all trees sway in wind so sees no reason to allow for removal of the others. Ms Reilly made a motion to approve removal of trees #4 and #5 but deny the other three trees at this time. Mr Morris seconded the motion; the motion carried. Mr Morris added that the roots near the foundation of the house and 20% of the limbs of the canopy can be removed. Mr Salisbury advised the applicant they can reapply for removal if an arborist finds any issues up in the tree, particularly at the crotch on tree #1. 5. 103 Dericote – Removal of one pine tree Mr Salisbury reported the one pine tree is in the rear yard; the applicant wants to add a shed in his yard. He needs a studio as he is a musician and the Mayor had told him to apply. A tree company has stated the tree is uprooting and has dropped large limbs but he understands the tree is healthy. Mr Salisbury advised that a site plan and building permit are required before allowing for removal of a tree. Mr Morris asked if there are any easements. The applicant responded that there is drainage in the rear, he believes the fence is at the edge of the easement, not the property line. Ms Campbell stated the plans are needed to show removal is necessary. Ms Reilly made the motion to defer a decision until the necessary plans for installation of the shed have been submitted. Mr Morris seconded the motion; the motion carried. 5. 120 Gadsden Removal of four trees Mr Salisbury reported the property has a lot of trees and removal would benefit the other trees; Sweet Gum tree is close to driveway and trailer parking pad; Magnolia tree roots are at issue; Holly tree top in intertwined with adjoining trees and is adjacent to play area; white Oak in front yard is in very poor health. Mr Salisbury added he believes proper pruning of the Holly tree will make it healthier in the long run and that this property is well forested and has many beautiful trees. Mr Wallace made a motion to allow removal of the White Oak, Sweet Gum and Magnolia tree but advise to reduce crown of Holly tree by no more than 20%. Mr Morris seconded the motion. Ms Reilly abstained because she has not seen the tree in person. 6. 317 Eagles Glen Drive – Removal of four trees Mr Salisbury reported one 28” caliper pine tree is located 9’ from house; applicant reported the root system runs under the house. Ms Campbell asked the reason for the other three trees. The applicant responded that he would like to put a shed in but the #1 tree is main concern at this time. Mr Salisbury reported there are many nice trees in the yard. Mr Morris reported those other three trees are more of a cluster. Ms Reilly made a motion to grant approval of the 28” pine tree and defer removal of 10” and 12” trees until application for shed permit has been made. Mr Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried. 7. Parker’s Kitchen – A site plan with graded trees on survey was provided. Mr Salisbury reported he has walked the site and did not see any trees worth saving. Ms Reilly asked the reason for removal of good trees. The applicant reported most are in drive aisles or there will be difficulty with the grading. Mr Salisbury added the survival rate would be slim for any tree left on site as they are used to growing in forested areas. He explained his philosophy in regards to saving trees on construction sites. Mr Wallace made a motion to approve removal of all grand trees shown except for five trees in the area of future drive aisle which are deferred until final location of tanks determined. Ms Reilly seconded the motion. The motion carried. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am on a motion by Mr Morris and a second by Ms Reilly. The motion passed. Respectfully submitted, Date:_________________________ Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair___________________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair __________________________________