Tree Protection Board
Regular MeetingSummerville, SC · August 10, 2020
Minutes
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, August 12, 2020
Members Present:
Ginger Reilly
Peter Wallace
David Morris
Kenny Sott
Faye Campbell
Staff Present:
Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Mr. Morris asked for consideration of the July 8, 2020
meeting minutes. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Reilly
seconded the motion for approval. The motioned carried 4-0.
Old Business
1. 115 Guilford Drive – Removal of six pine trees
Ms. Virginia Tupper explained to the board that there are too many tree in the back yard of
this property and that it has resulted in the loss of multiple sales of the property. The intent
is to make this more marketable, and potentially pool ready for a prospective buyer. Mr.
George Tupper added that there are more trees on the property than is required, and that
he doesn’t want to take them all down. Mr. Wallace explained that in typical fashion the pool
permit would come first then the tree removal, and that expense would be on the buyer of
the home. Mr. Sott addressed the fact that Mr. Salisbury, Town Arborist, had pointed out
that one of the trees was leaning toward the house, but that he felt the removal of healthy
trees from the lot would be detrimental to the lot. Mr. Morris felt he was on the fence, and
that he felt that they had done a great job preserving trees in the neighborhood. A thinning
of the trees on the lot was suggested. Ms. Tupper suggested that this particular cluster
closest to the house was the biggest issue.
Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the leaning tree closest to the house and the first
two trees in the line of four, for a total of three (3) trees. Mr. Sott seconded the motion. The
motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Morris voting against
New Business
1. Parker’s Kitchen #84, Ladson and Limehouse Road – Removal of 12 Pine Trees, 26 Oak
trees, and 11 others
Mr. Sott explained the request according to Mr. Salisbury’s report. Mr. Todd Simmons of
Freeland and Kaufman explained that they had previously obtained Board permission for tree
removal at this location with a different layout, before the Town’s Design Review Board had
given Final Approval. Redesigns resulted in extensive changes to the layout. He explained
that with the proposed underground detention, the extra clearing was needed to
accommodate the needed temporary pond on the adjacent proposed lot. Mr. Sott asked if
any trees were being saved on Lot 1. Mr. Simmons confirmed that no trees were being
preserved on Lot 1. Mr. Macholl addressed the approval process through the Design review
Board, and explained that they would have a difficult time executing this plan without the use
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, August 12, 2020
of this adjacent lot, especially if they did not own the parcel. Mr. Wallace asked about
possible mitigation. Mr. Sott pointed out that development will occur on the remaining
parcels, resulting in the loss of most of those trees too.
Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve as presented. Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Further discussion addressed the need for mitigation and possible locations for this
mitigation. Mr. Macholl addressed the landscape plan approved by the DRB. An additional
oak tree was requested between the building and Limehouse Drive. The motion carried 4-1
with Ms. Reilly voting against.
2. 208 Sheppard Street – Removal of six Pine trees, one Magnolia tree, and three Sweet Gum
trees
Mr. Gary and Sandy Bland, applicants, explained that the request for tree removal is for the
installation of a pool. They want to expand the covered porch and leave some open lawn
space. Their options are limited by the number of drainage easements that are on the back
side of the property. 11 large Pines would remain on the property. Mr. Wallace asked about
the 13” Gum tree #8 on the plan, and Mr. Bland explained that it was very close to the ditch,
that will be filled in soon due to the construction of some homes behind the property. Mr. Sott
asked about moving the pool to the right to save the 30” and 24” Pines. Room for the pool
plumbing is needed, and moving the pool results in different trees being impacted. Mr.
Wallace expressed a desire to save the 30” tree, noted as #1 on the plan. Mr. Bland offered
to mitigate for the loss of the tree.
Mr. Wallace made a motion to all the removal of all trees except #2, with required mitigation
to be determined by the arborist for tree #1. The motion was seconded by Ms. Reilly. The
motion passed unanimously 5-0.
Miscellaneous: Discussion concerning the Creekside Mobile home Park mitigation proposal. Ms.
Reilly discussed with the board that the park had proposed to plant one tree per lot for a total
of 40 trees. Mr. Wallace explained that because of the new flood zones, the lots were no
longer usable and it was admirable that they had proposed to use their property in this
manner.
Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the removal of the tree, and accept the proposed
mitigation plan. The motion was seconded by Ms. Campbell. The motion passed unanimously
5-0.
Tree Protection Board Minutes
Monday, August 12, 2020
ADJOURN:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:19 am on a motion by Mr. Sott
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
_________________________________________
Agenda
TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE
TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA
August 10, 2020 - 9:00 AM
VIRTUAL MEETING
This meeting will be conducted electronically and livestreamed
on the Town’s website: www.summervillesc.gov
For additional information regarding items on this agenda, 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
Approval of Minutes
1. July 8, 2020 minutes
Old Business
1. 115 Guilford Drive – Removal of six Pine trees
New Business
1. Parker’s Kitchen #84, Ladson and Limehouse Road – Removal of 12 Pine trees, 26 Oak trees,
and 11 other trees
2. 208 Shepard Street – Removal of six Pine trees, one Magnolia tree, and three Sweet Gum trees
Miscellaneous
Adjournment
Posted August 4, 2020
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________________________
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 27, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: July 24, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Tupperway Construction
Owner: George Tupper
Requested Action: Removal of six Pine trees
Location: 115 Guilford Drive
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: One of the five pine trees is leaning towards the house but all are healthy.
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
July 27, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: July 23, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Freeland & Kaufman
Owner: Todd Simmons
Requested Action: Removal of 12 Pine trees, 26 Oak trees, and 11 other trees
Location: Ladson Road and Limehouse Drive
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: Owner is planning to remove all trees for the construction of Parker’s
Kitchen/Gas Station. He has previously been to TPB and was required to save several trees.
He has a new landscape plan that requires removal of all trees on site. I determined that the
trees are all average with no stand out specimens.
4,920 S.F.
ACREAGE SUMMARY
(IN ACRES)
ACREAGE SUMMARY
(IN ACRES)
STAFF REPORT
Tree Protection Committee Meeting
Aug.10, 2020
To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board
From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner
Date: 7/30, 2020
GENERAL
INFORMATION
Property Applicant: Sandra & Gary Blond
Owner: Sandra & Gary Blond
Requested Action: To Remove 6 Pine Trees, 1 Magnolia Tree & 3 Gum Trees.
Location: 208 Shepard St.
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# 24” Pine Tree that’s healthy with a medium crown.
2# 30” Pine Tree that’s healthy with a medium crown that is forked
3# 19” Pine Tree that’s healthy with a medium crown that is forked and crooked.
4# 24” Pine Tree that’s healthy with a full crown.
5# 24” Pine Tree that has a cavity in the truck.
6# 24” Pine Tree that has a cavity in the truck.
7# 11” Gum Tree that is declining in the crown
8# 10” Gum Tree that has suckers on the truck and a weak crown.
9# 13” Gum Tree with a medium crown.
10# 9” magnolia with suckers on the truck.
6
2 6 5 9
4 7
3
1
4 8
6
5 7
10 9
3
2
1 3
9
4
9
1 3
2
6
10 4 5
7
9
8
3 2
1 10 4 5
9
8
7
1 10
3 4
5
7
Get email alerts for Summerville
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.