Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, April 20, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting Members Present: David Morris Ginger Reilly Peter Wallace Kenny Sott Faye Campbell 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 March 9, 2020 meeting minutes. Mr. Wallace made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The motioned carried 7-0. Old Business 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road Lot 43 – At last month’s meeting the concern presented had to do with sewer lines; this month the concern is the placement of a double wide trailer on the lot. Mr. Salisbury reported that placement of the trailer on this lot would be a tight fit. There are other open lots it would fit in better. Ms. Reilly suggested seeing the site plan and trailer placement on the lot would be helpful. Mr. Wallace made the motion to request the site plan and trailer placement, and Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. After a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. New Business 1. 116 Atlantic Street – Removal of 16 Pine trees. Mr. Salisbury reported the owner will be putting a house on the lot. Most of the trees are not very healthy. He recommended removal of 14 of the 16 trees due to health and location and to deny two of the larger trees in the corners of the lot. Mr. Morris made the motion to allow 14 of the 16 trees based on staff report, and Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. 2008 Shoal Creek Court – Removal of four Pine trees. The owner, Maggie Cleveland, previously had a permit to remove two of the trees which has expired. In addition to these trees, she would like approval to remove two additional trees for safety concerns. Mr. Salisbury concurs with the previous approval for removal of the first two trees; however, he did not see anything wrong with the other two trees regarding possible bug infestation (holes present). Mr. Wallace thought the damage to the tree was caused by yellow bellied sapsuckers which is usually not harmful to the tree. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of the first two trees but not the other two. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Before a roll call vote was taken, the owner voiced her frustration of putting off removal of two trees due to the additional cost to her at a later date. Mr. Sott amended the motion to allow the owner to have an arborist evaluate the trees in question. Mr. Salisbury stated he would be available to the owner when the trees are evaluated; if there is good reason, he can approve removal at that time. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. 707 Kilarney Road – Removal of two Pine trees. The owner, Stephanie Williams, stated there are five trees in her yard; she is asking to remove two that are within ten feet of her house. They sway in storms, and one has damage from construction. Mr. Salisbury reported that the smaller tree is damaged, but the other is healthy. Mr. Wallace asked what part of house would be impacted; owner stated the dining room. Ms. Campbell stated Pine trees do sway naturally. Mr. Salisbury added there is no damage to the eave or foundation from this tree. Ms. Campbell  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, April 20, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting made a motion to approve removal of the smaller damaged tree; Mr. Morris seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. 201 Simmons Avenue – Removal of 19 Pines, 3 Oaks, and 3 other trees. The owner, Ashley Smith, would like to remove the trees to build her house on the lot. Mr. Salisbury reported there are some very healthy trees on the lot. However, there are some trees not accounted for on the tree survey as well as some trees shown that are not there. Mr. Salisbury reported there are two grand trees, a very healthy 36” DBH Pine tree at the front and an 18” DBH Sweet Gum tree that is close to the garage. There are a number of healthy trees that are not in the house site plan that he said could be saved, but the two grand trees needed to be considered first. Ms. Smith stated she does not understand the problem; she has been working with an architect diligently on the house and site plans for three years, and this is the second rendition. The first plan worked around a large Water Oak tree which subsequently fell over on top of an existing shack. The second rendition placed the house in the center of the lot, which she believes is required by ordinance. The trees are in the way of where she will be building. Mr. Wallace asked why she was requesting to remove almost all of the trees on the lot that are not in the way of the house. Ms. Smith stated she wanted to remove most of the existing trees so she could install a landscaping plan for the whole site using trees of her own choosing. It is her lot, private property, and she has a vision for it. She stated that the existing trees would prevent her from having the landscape design she desires. Mr. Wallace then stated that the purpose of the Tree Protection Board was to prevent trees, especially grand trees, to be cut down. He also stated the fact that Summerville is known as ‘The Flower Town in the Pines’. Ms. Campbell added that Ms. Smith chose to purchase a site with a lot of trees on it, not a lot with no trees. Further discussion ensued from Ms. Smith to Ms. Campbell regarding her constitutional rights regarding her private property. Going back to the grand trees, Mr. Wallace asked Ms. Smith if she read and understood the ordinance that states every effort should be made to position the house if possible to avoid compromising a grand tree. Ms. Smith stated that is what she has spent a lot of time and money doing, as she previously explained. Mr. Wallace stated that he believes this 36” Pine tree is one of the tallest ones in Summerville. The tree ordinance states all efforts should be made to accommodate this tree, which could be done by moving the house on the lot slightly. Mr. Wallace made the motion for TPB to recommend moving the house sufficiently away from the 36” DBH pine tree such that it will not be threatened by the building, and Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. Before a roll call vote was taken, additional discussion ensued regarding how far the house would need to be moved from the tree. The builder stated ‘slightly’ would not be enough for the footing required. Mr. Salisbury stated 20 feet. Ms. Smith asked if that would put it closer to the 40” DBH Oak tree, which Mr. Salisbury confirmed. If it could be 15’ away from each of those trees, that should work. Ms. Smith expressed her unhappiness with the prospect of more time and astronomical expense to rework the plan and then asked what the fine would be for removing the tree without a permit. Ms. Shuler addressed the question of the fines that would be incurred as well as the requirement for mitigation. Mr. Wallace reiterated his point of the 36” DBH tree being one the largest pines in Summerville. Ms. Smith stated she is not willing to go to the expense and delay that would involve because it is unreasonable. She stated the TPB has taken this issue ‘way over the line of what this ordinance was meant to do’. She has already revised the plan one time and has waited for three years to get started on the project already. Ms. Reilly requested Ms. Smith return to the TPB with a plan showing the house moved and then the balance of the trees could be considered at the time. Ms. Smith refused to leave the meeting without discussing the rest of the trees on the site. After more discussion regarding cost and time, Ms. Smith reiterated her unwillingness to comply with the TPB’s motion  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, April 20, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting due to it is unreasonableness and would plan to cut the grand pine tree down and pay the fine. She had been told by her architect that there would be no objection to removing any trees in the footprint of the house, and the TPB was being unreasonable about the trees in an assault on her constitutional rights and private property. Her builder agreed with Ms. Smith about the cost involved and added a safety concern of having that Pine tree so near the house. He could not assure that digging the foundation for the house would not cause damage to the roots, weakening the tree, making it a hazard later on. The TPB then went through the site plan numerically based on a numbered evaluation that Mr. Salisbury did in the field; an ‘a’ or ‘b’ follows the number for trees that were not originally shown on the tree survey. The numbered tree survey was screen shared during the discussion. The discussion was as follows: #1 allow removal; #2 already cut down previously after storm; #3 already cut down previously after storm; #4 save; #5 save (36” DBH grand Pine tree previously discussed); #6 allow removal; #7 allow removal; #8 save; #9 allow removal; #10 allow removal; #11-16 allow removal of cluster; #17 save, #18 save, #19 allow removal, #20 save. (Ms Smith questioned, at this time, why the staff could not make the determination on the trees which are less than 16” DBH, as per the tree ordinance. Mr. Salisbury stated it is his policy that when a yard goes to TPB, all trees will be determined by the Board. Ms. Smith wanted to know where to find it in writing. Mr. Salisbury explained it is his policy, and it is not in writing. Ms. Shuler explained that it is the staff member’s (Mr. Salisbury’s) discretion whether to approve a site or refer it to the TPB, and TPB then makes the determination on all trees on any site which has been brought before it, so as not to have some trees approved by the staff member and others approved by the Board on a given site.) #20a (15” DBH pine in corner not shown on survey) save; #20b (15” DBH pine shown on survey but not originally numbered) save; #21 save if possible, but can be removed if damaged from adjacent pine; #22 allow removal; #23 allow removal; #24a (24” DBH cluster shown on survey but not originally numbered) allow removal; #24 allow removal; #25 save; #26 allow removal. Mr. Sott made a motion to save ten trees and have tree #5 mitigated 100%, and Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Discussion followed. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Morris – in favor; Ms. Reilly – opposed; Mr. Wallace – opposed; Ms. Campbell – opposed; Mr. Sott – in favor. The motion failed 3-2. Ms. Reilly then made a motion to deny permission for removal of tree #5, the 36” DBH Pine tree, and Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Morris – in favor; Ms. Reilly – in favor; Mr. Wallace – in favor; Ms. Campbell – in favor; Mr. Sott – opposed. The motion carried 4-1. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the remainder of trees as discussed previously, and Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Ms. Smith questioned Ms. Shuler about the process for moving forward on her build, i.e. cutting down the trees, paying any fines and the mitigation requirements. There was mention of taking the issue to court over the cutting down of the 36” DBH pine tree. Mr. Sott added that it is a misdemeanor charge to cut down a tree without approval in addition to the fine and mitigation process. Ms. Shuler concurred that it is a misdemeanor offence as a violation of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and is usually issued to the property owner and the person who cuts the tree down. Ms. Smith asked about the process to appeal. Ms. Shuler said that would be to the Dorchester County Circuit Court of South Carolina. Following the discussion, a roll call vote was taken and passed unanimously.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, April 20, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting 5. 100 Comiskey Park Circle – Removal of 6 Pine trees. The owner, James Repasch, stated his concern with the trees being that during heavy winds the trees sway to within inches of the house. He has already lost two trees and had branches fall on his roof. Mr. Salisbury reported that all of the trees are healthy but the two trees between this house and the house next door are very close to the houses. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of the two trees between the houses as well as a tree in the rear if Mr. Salisbury determines it is diseased, as the owner stated. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote passed the motion unanimously. Mr. Salisbury then advised Mr. Repasch to consider having the tree company remove limbs hanging over the house when they come to remove the other trees. 6. 115 Heritage Lane – Removal of 3 Pine trees. The owner, Tommie Grant, stated his safety concerns regarding the trees because they are losing dead limbs. Mr. Salisbury reported the trees are healthy but they need some maintenance. Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Salisbury that the trees need to be pruned. Mr. Wallace made a motion to have an arborist do additional pruning but no more that the recommended 20% per Mr. Salisbury, and to deny removal of trees at this time. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote passed the motion unanimously. 7. 500 Crestview Drive – Removal of 1 Live Oak. The fee for TPB review was not paid; Mr. Salisbury stated the owner was agreeable to wait another month to present to the board. Miscellaneous: There were no items under Miscellaneous. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:54 am on a motion by Mr. Wallace and a second by Mr. Sott. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Date:___________________ Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair _____________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair ________________________