Tree Protection Board
Regular MeetingSummerville, SC · July 6, 2020
Minutes
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, July 6, 2020
Summerville Municipal Complex
Council Chambers, Third Floor
Members Present:
Peter Wallace
Kenny Sott
Faye Campbell
Staff Present:
Jessi Shuler, Director of Planning
Bill Salisbury, Arborist
The meeting was called to order at 9:02 am. Mr. Sott asked for consideration of the June 8, 2020 meeting minutes.
Mr. Wallace made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The motioned carried 5-0.
Old Business
1. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road Lot 43 – As per letter from manager of MHP, it was stated that the tree does
need to be removed in order to place a home on this site. The owner plans to replant 15 trees in the MHP. Because
of the new guidelines for the hundred-year floodplain, this is the last available lot. A site plan was provided with
measurements. The applicant stated she had tried to accommodate for the tree; with the flood zone, when a trailer is
removed it cannot be put back. She presented a proposal from a landscaper for mitigating trees on these vacant
flood zone lots. Mr. Sott made the motion to allow for tree removal if Mr. Salisbury confirms setbacks in field and
mitigation is met, Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The location of home in the
field will be flagged.
2. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road Lot 123 – Mr. Salisbury reported roots are causing damage to sidewalk and
driveway. Ms. Campbell asked if steppingstones could be used instead; however, the applicant said stepping stones
are not typically allowed. Mr. Wallace agreed with Ms. Campbell and asked if the applicant could check with the
company. She stated she will but it has not been allowed in the previous four years. Postponed until answer is
received from the company.
New Business
1. 111 Alwyn – Removal of three Pine trees. The trees are in close proximity to the house as well as the
neighbor’s house. Mr. Salisbury reviewed the trees. #1 – Codominant leader but healthy, #2 Codominant but not as
healthy, #3 – A healthy tree, 14’ from house. The applicant reported the trees sway strongly in the wind, making him
nervous. Mr. Sott stated #2 has a major codominant stem, the others are healthier and trees sway naturally in wind.
Mr. Sott made the motion to allow removal of #2, and deny #1 and #3. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion; added #1
and #3 could be selectively pruned to make safer. Mr. Sott added the applicant can have the others looked at by an
arborist when he comes to cut down #2, and to contact Mr. Salisbury if something else is found. The motion passed
unanimously.
2. 220 Sumter – Removal of three Pine trees one Cedar tree. The applicant stated her mom owns the house and
is concerned about danger to the house if the trees fall. The cedar is knocking down a brick fence wall, and the three
pines are very close to the house. She is requesting at least the removal of the two pines closest to the house and is
willing to mitigate. Mr. Salisbury reported #1 is 12’ away from house, with no obvious defects and could be pruned;
#2 is 8’ from house, has a smaller crown and is not as healthy; #3 cedar is cracking the wall; #4 pine tree is 4’ from
wall, but no cracks are evident. The applicant stated they understand the trees are healthy but they get very scared
during our increasingly strong storms. Mr. Wallace stated he is torn because he understands the fear and
appreciates the willingness to mitigate, and mitigation must be a canopy tree. Applicant stated they would plant as
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, July 6, 2020
Summerville Municipal Complex
Council Chambers, Third Floor
many as needed. Mr. Wallace stated if there is not enough room on the lot, donation to the Tree Bank for amount
that would not fit is acceptable. Mr. Salisbury stated inch per inch would be eight trees. Mr. Wallace stated a
concern for setting a precedent. The applicant stated her mom also mentioned that when an historic house is
damaged, it is harder and takes longer to fix. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of #2 and #3, deny #1 and
#4, and consider pruning branches of #1. If an arborist finds something, they can reconsider these two trees. Ms.
Campbell seconded the motion and stated no mitigation is required. The motion passed unanimously.
3. 205 Factor’s Walk– Removal of five Pine trees and one Red Maple. No applicant was present. Mr. Salisbury
reviewed each tree; the pine trees all look healthy. #1 is close to a sidewalk; #2 has two co-dominate stems which
are twisting and rubbing each other; #3-5 are not perfect specimens, but only in that they have crooked trunks. The
Red Maple in the back yard was a codominant tree of which one half has been removed and the remaining portion is
struggling. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve removal of #1, #2 and the maple tree, but deny #3, 4, and
5; Mr. Sott seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous:
ADJOURN:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 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________________________
Agenda
TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE
TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA
Summerville Municipal Complex
Council Chambers, Third Floor
July 6, 2020 - 9:00 AM
The public and Town Council members are strongly encouraged to attend virtually
The meeting will be live-streamed through the live-streaming link on the Town’s website:
https://scsummerville.civicplus.com/159/Live-Streaming-Meetings
For additional information regarding items on this agenda including any public hearings, please contact
the Planning Department at planning@summervillesc.gov or 843.851.4217. Applications and related
documents for this meeting are available for review at any time at www.summervillesc.gov/AgendaCenter
Public that chooses to attend this meeting in person will be required to have their temperature scanned,
wear a mask, and abide by social distancing requirements.
Approval of Minutes
1. June 8, 2020 minutes
Old Business
1. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 43 – Removal of one Pine tree
2. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 123 – Removal of one Pine tree
New Business
1. 111 Alwyn Blvd - Removal of three Pine trees
2. 220 Sumter Avenue – Removal of three Pine trees and one Cedar tree
3. 205 Factors Walk – Removal of six Pine trees and one Red Maple
Miscellaneous
Adjournment
Posted June 29, 2020
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, June 8, 2020
Members Present:
Ginger Reilly
Peter Wallace
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 May 11, 2020
meeting minutes. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The
motioned carried 5-0.
Old Business
1. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 43 – Removal of one 28” Pine Tree
Mr. Salisbury reported he measured and the tree is not 20’ from house to left, saying that it
has to also be 20’ from house to the right, but does not appear to be room to fit the home
and comply with 20’ distance from both sides of house. Ms. Shuler stated she is not sure
about the size of a standard home, but 16’ appears to be the most common size. Mr.
Wallace made a motion to deny removal until explanation of reasoning for removal is
provided, Ms Campbell seconded the motion. The motion carried.
New Business
1. 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 123 – Fee not paid
2. 803 S. Main Street – Removal of one Water Oak, Laurel Oak and four Holly trees.
Mr. Salisbury reported that the trees are healthy but the applicant is putting in a pool and is
trying to keep it as far away from a large Live Oak as possible. The applicant stated that the
Water Oak was approved for removal last year due to it having knocked down a cement
block wall, keeping out of the dripline of the Live Oak. Mr Wallace asked why he did not
locate the pool on the street side. The applicant stated there is the safety factor of the
children if it is not in view from the house plus the Laurel Oak would still be damaged as well
as other trees not shown on the plan need to be removed if the pool were located there. Ms
Reilly stated she can appreciate the reasons for the location and is willing to allow if tied to a
pool permit. Mr Wallace stated it will change the character of the yard. Ms Reilly made a
motion to allow removal of the holly trees and one Laurel Oak tree in the footprint of the pool
with the pool permit.
The applicant stated there is a Water Oak with dieback in the crown, it is leaning toward
school property and the center is already gone. Mr. Wallace does not feel it is an immediate
threat and could be balanced with removal of a large limb over adjacent property. The
applicant did not agree with removal of large limb as it would stress the tree. He is also
planning on building a cabana but is waiting on drawings. Mr Salisbury asked where the tree
is located and how big the cabana will be. The applicant stated the cabana will be about 15’;
the tree is not in good health and is a hazard. Ms. Reilly stated since it is not an imminent
threat he could have an arborist climb and assess the tree while the others are being
removed. Mr. Wallace stated that the urban canopy needed to be considered, not just threat
of danger. Ms Reilly made a motion to deny removal until assessment by arborist. Mr.
Wallace seconded the motion. The applicant stated they are just prolonging the inevitable;
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, June 8, 2020
he asked about mitigation. Mr Wallace stated inch for inch mitigation or contribution to Tree
Fund. There was discussion about the location of the cabana to avoid the Live Oak and to
determine removal of the Water Oak. Mr Wallace asked if he is willing to mitigate with a
canopy tree elsewhere in the yard. The applicant stated he is okay with mitigation, planning
to plant a Live Oak. A vote was taken on Ms. Reilly’s motion. It did not pass. Mr. Wallace
made a motion to allow removal of the Water Oak with planting of Live Oak. Ms. Campbell
seconded the motion. The motion passed with two in favor, Ms. Reilly abstained from the
vote.
3. 192 Factor’s Walk – Removal of one Pine and two hardwood trees
Mr. Salisbury reported the large 32” pine in the back yard has had a limb removed high up
that now has a hole, he could not tell if there is a cavity there. The tree is raised up at the
base. The owner is concerned about drainage but Mr. Salisbury did not see any drainage
problems at this time. Mr. Salisbury stated one of the hardwood trees is dead, is closest to
the deck. The other tree has significant lean. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of
the two hardwood trees adjacent to the deck but to disallow for removal of the large Pine
until an arborist makes an evaluation of the hole. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The
motion carried.
Miscellaneous: There were no items under Miscellaneous.
ADJOURN:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 am on a motion by Ms. Reilly
and a second by Ms. Campbell. The motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Date:___________________
Bill Salisbury
Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair
_________________________________________; or,
Faye Campbell, Vice Chair
_________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 6, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: June 28, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Scott Wilson
Owner: Yes Communities
Requested Action: Removal of one 28” Pine tree
Location: 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 43
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: Pine tree looks to be in good health. Letter from Kim Racke, Regional Vice
President of Yes! Communities, stating this site is the last one not in the flood zone. (See letter
attached.)
From: Kim Racke <kracke@yescommunities.com>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 1:54 PM
To: Wike, Pamela <pwike@summervillesc.gov>
Cc: Scott Wilson <SWilson@yescommunities.com>; April Rumble <ARumble@yescommunities.com>
Subject: Tree removal
Ms. Pamela
May I make another plea for this. There are circumstances at this property that I am not sure have been
conveyed to all involved?
Right now, Creekside is completely full, well, in a sense. A property of Creekside size and caliper makes
every site worth approximately $30K in loan valuation. Every vacant site decreases the value of the
property significantly. Shortly after the 1000 year flood in 2015, the city came in a deemed 42% of our
property as flood zone, meaning every time someone removes their home from the property that is
located in the flood zone, that site becomes dead, we cannot do anything with those sites, they cannot
even be touched. We have already lost 17 sites to flood zone and another is coming. This equates to
over $500K in lost loan valuation. Site 43 is now our only site left that is not in the flood zone that we
can put a home on, period! This property is slowly rolling backwards yet we continue to pay the same
amount of property taxes.
This property has thousands and thousands of pine trees on it. We never remove trees just to remove
them, it is only done based on necessity.
I completely understand the need to manage tree removal but if you could allow us this one tree, we
would be happy to replace it by replanting trees throughout the community based on an amount you
choose that is reasonable. Please note if this home was allowed to be placed, we would be adding a
landscape package to the site that would include another tree.
Could you please reconsider? I do not have an email for Bill but would be extremely grateful if you could
pass it along to him.
Kim Racke
Regional Vice President
2 Dollie Circle
Summerville, SC 29485
t: (843) 376-4641
e: kracke@yescommunities.com
www.yescommunities.com
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 6, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: June 29 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Scott Wilson
Owner: Yes Communities
Requested Action: Removal of one 31” Pine tree
Location: 1925 Bacon’s Bridge Road, Lot 123
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 condition.
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 6, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: June 29, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Justin Coleman
Owner: Justin Coleman
Requested Action: Remove 3 Pine trees
Location: 111 Alwyn Blvd
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:
#1 – 30” cal. Tree located 15’ from house, some dead branches, top may have broken out
sometime ago
#2 – 26” cal. Tree located 16’ from house, is forked
#3 – 21” cal. Tree located 14’ from house, is forked at the top
3
3
3
2 1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 6, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: June 29, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Mary Ellen Green
Owner: Mary Ellen Green
Requested Action: Remove three Pine trees and one Cedar tree
Location: 220 Sumter Avenue
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:
#1 – 23” cal. Pine Tree, located 12’ from house
#2 – 19” cal. Pine Tree, located 8’ from house
#3 – 24” cal. Pine Tree, located 4’ from brick fence
#4 – Cedar Tree – located next to brick fence, cause it to crack
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 6, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: June 29, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Matthew Vega
Owner: Matthew Vega
Requested Action: Removal of six Pine trees and one Red Maple
Location: 205 Factors Walk
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 trees all look generally healthy. #1 is close to a sidewalk, #2 has two co-
dominant stems which are twisting and rubbing each other, #3-5 are not perfect specimens in
that they have crooked trunks. The Red Maple in the back yard was a co-dominant tree of
which one half has been removed and the remaining portion is struggling.
Get email alerts for Summerville
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.