Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 11, 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 9:15 am. Roll call was taken. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the April 20, 2020 meeting minutes. Mr. Morris seconded the motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The motioned carried 7-0. Old Business 1. 201 Simmons Avenue – Mr. Salisbury provided an overview; an arborist hired by the owner had evaluated the 36” pine tree and provided a letter of assessment to Ms. Smith which was included in the meeting packet which the TPB members had read. It referred to a lightning strike which had healed over, and that there was not enough room on the site to move the location of the house to meet the 1’ per 1” caliper required to ensure future health of the tree. Mr. Wallace stated there was nothing the arborist saw that the board members had not seen. Ms. Smith questioned why the lightning strike had not been mentioned at the previous TPB meeting. She additionally questioned how the trees are graded, including the standard used and by what process. Mr. Sott addressed those concerns by saying each member visited the site separately and saw the lightning strike but that it appeared to be healed over, and they did not believe it was an issue. Ms. Smith asked about the use of an ISA risk assessment form she had seen on the ISA website. Mr. Salisbury answered that the ISA risk assessment standards are used to grade the trees but the actual form is not used. Ms. Smith stated she needed more information and there has to be equity in grading of trees since there are different assessments from different certified arborists. Mr. Wallace asked whether they were there to discuss the remaining trees on this site or just the 36” pine tree. Ms. Smith reiterated her questions regarding tree grading processes. Mr. Wallace stated that there was no mention of the lightning strike in the previous minutes but agreed that it should have been in the record. Ms. Smith again voiced her concerns about the TPB, what standard is used for the process to be equitable and fair. Mr. Sott asked Mr. Salisbury to answer Ms. Smith‘s concerns in writing which he agreed to do. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of the large 36” pine tree with 100% mitigation. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. Ms. Smith asked for explanation of mitigation. Mr. Salisbury stated the tree loss would need to be mitigated inch for inch with at least 2.5” caliper canopy trees. Mr. Wallace added larger caliper trees could be used but the smaller trees have a better survival rate and help alleviate space problems. Mr. Salisbury explained about paying into the Tree Fund rather than actually adding the trees to her landscape plan if there are space constraints. Ms. Campbell stated that the tree committee could not tell when the lightning strike occurred but could see it had healed. Each lightning strike occurrence is different. Ms. Smith stated she understands that but her concern was that it was not even mentioned in the previous meeting. Mr. Sott stated that Ms. Smith’s concerns have been duly noted. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 2. 110 Pinewood Drive – Given the large number of trees to be considered, the TPB agreed to review and vote on them in smaller groupings by location on the site referencing the numbers provided on the tree survey. Mr. Salisbury stated the owner would like to remove trees 33, 34, 35 and 36; in doing  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 11, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting so, the pine trees would do better. The owner, Mr. Garrett, stated that the pines are healthy but they do have some significant lean. The eleven inch pine is not growing very well, and the two largest pines have pretty good leans. Mr. Sott asked about the DOT setback and what type of driveway was being installed. Mr. Garrett stated it would be slag with concrete curbing. Mr. Wallace stated he visited the site and disagrees with the severity of the lean/health; the issue is with the location of the driveway and could it be moved. Mr. Garrett stated with the utilities in the front yard it is difficult to back in equipment. Mr. Sott asked if it is possible to back into the ten foot area if the trees were not removed. Mr. Garrett said it would be squeezed between the house and trees. Mr. Wallace made a motion to remove the four trees for the driveway, Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Trees 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: Mr. Salisbury stated trees 7 and 8 are in the way of access, 5, 6 and 9 are on the side. Mr. Garrett explained 5, 7 and 8 are in the way because it will be a two-bay carport, 6 and 9 are even with the 10’ setback and should not keep him from parking or storing things but would be easier if they were removed also. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of 7 and 8 but for 5, 6 and 9 to stay. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. Mr. Garrett requested 9 be left but he be allowed to remove 5 and 6 with full mitigation. Mr. Wallace amended the motion to allow removal of 7 and 8, and to also allow removal of 5 and 6 with full mitigation, 9 is denied. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Trees 10, 14, 15, 16: Mr. Sott questioned the health of 16. Mr. Salisbury stated is it fine but leaning away from property. Mr. Garrett stated it is 6-7’ away from carport itself but he would rather take it out now before the building is in and it grows larger. Mr. Sott asked if it is a slab, Mr. Garrett said yes but he is not sure of the footer depth. Mr. Wallace stated a substantial footer would require root pruning. Ms. Campbell stated Trees 10, 13, 14, 15 are in the footprint and made a motion to remove those but leave 16. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sott stated if issues develop regarding the root system of 16, it can be brought back to TPB. Trees 11, 12, 19 (11 is a Hickory, not Pecan as shown on site plan): These trees are within 5-6’ of the carport and shed, in the way of slag between two buildings, in the way of pulling something out of 1st bay door. Mr. Sott pointed out a void at the bottom of one of the trees. Mr. Wallace stated it would have been helpful to know vehicle pathway when visiting site. Ms. Campbell made a motion to approve removal of these three trees; Mr. Morris seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Trees 17, 18, 20, 21 (a Hickory, not Pecan), 22, 24, 23: Mr. Salisbury stated these trees would be very difficult to keep because they are so close to the building footprint. Mr. Sott made a motion to approve removal of the trees, Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Morris asked about a Magnolia and Live Oak not on the tree survey; Mr. Garrett said the Magnolia was not large enough to require permission to remove, the Live Oak was not being removed. Trees 25, 26, 27, 28: Mr. Garrett stated 26 butts up to the well house so is concerned about damage to the well, 27 and 28 are close to uprooting of a large Live Oak. Mr. Garrett stated 25 is a Water Oak which has a bad reputation and he would rather remove and mitigate because of the problems it presents. Ms. Campbell stated that a number of trees have already been approved for removal and they would like to save as many other trees as possible. Mr. Garrett stated he is not asking to remove and not replant, he wants to remove the ones that are not aesthetically pleasing because they have issues. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of 25 with mitigation and to deny removal of 26, 27 and 28. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Sott added Mr. Garrett can return to the TPB if 26 causes problems with the well house in the future. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed four against one (Ms. Reilly).  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 11, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting Tree 37: Mr. Garrett reported the tree had been topped by the power company. Ms. Campbell made a motion to approve removal of 37; Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. New Business 1. 100 Classic Street – Removal of 2 Pines and 5 Oak trees. Mr. Salisbury reported 4 of the 5 oaks are diseased with a good bit of rot, and the owner has moved the house on the site to save a large oak on the other side. He wants to pipe the ditch; the two pines are not in the foot print of the house, but they are not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Winkle stated he plans to put in a pool and will mitigate for the trees. Mr. Sott asked if he has applied for a permit for the pool. Mr. Winkle stated not yet, but it would damage the property if he were to have it removed at a later date. Mr. Sott stated of the Oaks along the road, one looks healthier than the others, but there is still probably rot in the middle. Mr. Wallace stated there is only one worth considering. Ms. Campbell commended the owner for his willingness to move the house to save the large tree. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of all water oaks and to allow the two Pine trees with mitigation. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 330 Heber Street – Removal of 2 Pines and 1 Gum tree - Mr. Salisbury reported there are two Pine trees very close to the house, and a Gum tree in the rear that was probably broken out at the top in the past. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve removal of the Gum tree and the Pine tree furthest from the street that is damaging the AC unit. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. She stated she was leaning towards approving removal of both pines because they are so close. Mr. Salisbury stated the owner’s main reason for removal is limbs falling on the house. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 3 Princess Court – Removal of 4 Pines and 1 Cherry tree – Mr. Salisbury reported the pines are cracking the driveways on either side of the trees, and the Cherry tree is in very poor health. The pines are closer to the neighbor’s driveway; the trees are very healthy and have been root pruned previously. Mr. Wallace stated the cherry tree can be removed, but the pine trees labeled 3 and 4 need to stay. He made a motion to allow removal of the trees labeled 1, 2 and 5, but keep 3 and 4. Mr. Sott seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 520 King Charles Circle – Removal of 1 tree - Mr. Carter stated the tree is dropping nuts and causing damage to the roof of his porch. He is also concerned about the nuts falling and injuring children. Mr. Salisbury stated the tree is healthy but he did see dents in the roof. He does not think pruning would help. Mr. Morris stated looking at Google Earth the lot looks pretty wooded. Mr. Wallace made a motion to deny removal of the tree but allow trimming of no more than 20%. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Campbell told the owner it can be revisited if necessary. Mr. Sott thought he remembered one large limb over the house that could be pruned which might help with the roof. Miscellaneous: There were no items under Miscellaneous. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:12 am on a motion by Ms. Campbell and a second by Mr. Wallace. The motion carried.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 11, 2020 Zoom Cloud Meeting Respectfully submitted, Date:___________________ Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair _________________________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair _________________________________________