Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, November 11, 2020 Members Present: David Morris 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 a.m. Mr. Sott asked for consideration of the October 12, 2020 meeting minutes, and made a motion to accept them as written. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion for approval of the minutes as presented. The motioned carried. Old Business There was no Old Business on the agenda. New Business 1. 94 Sugarplum Drive – Removal of 3 Oak and 3 Gum trees The applicant was not present. Mr. Salisbury reported the owner originally wanted to remove 4 Oaks and 2 Gums but decided to change out the Oak in the front for a Gum which is in worse shape and closer to the driveway. All of the trees are unhealthy and have issues except for a Gum in front which is healthy. Mr. Morris pointed out that there are seventeen trees in the backyard which would benefit from the removal of the requested trees. Mr. Wallace agreed with Mr. Salisbury’s assessment. Mr. Morris made a motion to approve removal of all the trees in the rear yard (3 Oaks and 2 Gums) as well as the Gum in the front yard. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion carried. 2. 109 Frontage Road – Removal of 1 Pine tree The applicant is requesting to remove the 28” Pine tree due to the water supply being in direct path of the Pine which is in close proximity to the house. They have already had to repair the copper line three times over the years but could not replace the whole line because of the conflict with the roots. Ms. Campbell asked if the line had been replaced in the same place. The applicant replied that it has already been moved fifteen feet from the house but the roots continue to encase the line and he is concerned about further damage to water lines. Ms. Campbell suggested rerouting the line. The applicant stated the driveway is on one side and a Gum tree is on the other side, so that cannot be done. Mr. Salisbury stated the tree is in good health with no obvious problems. Mr. Wallace questioned whether the water line could be relocated right next to the driveway. The applicant responded that it is full of roots as well. Mr. Sott made a motion to allow removal of the tree. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried. 3. 104 Newcastle Court – Removal of 1 Pine tree The applicant is requesting to remove one 32” Pine tree due to concerns for safety of family, house, and neighbors. During storms, a lot of limbs and debris fall out and it sways a lot. Ms. Campbell explained that swaying is good. Mr. Morris stated it is one of the healthiest Pine trees that he has seen in town. Mr. Salisbury reported this is a very healthy tree and there are not a lot of trees in this yard. The applicant asked who would be held liable if it falls. Mr. Wallace explained that the Tree Protection Board’s purpose is to preserve trees that can be, and they must base all decisions on certain criteria. Mr.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, November 11, 2020 Sott stated the Board understands the applicant’s concern but the tree does not meet the criteria stated in the ordinance unless a professional arborist finds a health issue that cannot be seen from the ground. Mr. Wallace made a motion to deny removal of the Pine tree. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4. 113 W. Respite Lane – Removal of four Oaks and one Gum tree The applicant (Robbie Young, with Lennar Homes) stated he is willing to mitigate 200% for these trees because he would suffer significant financial loss if he is unable to build on this lot which would create a big hardship. Mr. Salisbury reported the Oak trees are in fair condition, young Oaks in back are very healthy, Gum in back is in very poor condition; largest Oak in front had many limbs broken out; asked whether it is possible to flip the garage to the other side of the lot with the Gum tree. Robbie agreed it could be possible though he would have to move the house over on the lot but it could probably be accommodated. Mr. Morris stated the young Live Oak in the middle of the garage footprint is in good health. Mr. Salisbury stated it would also depend on the site of the garage on lot 38. Robbie said the garage of lot 38 would be next to this garage and it might be a better plan to move the garage; sidewalk could be moved as well. Mr. Salisbury pointed out the buffer behind it in which to drain. Robbie pointed out the three ponds in back provide lots of opportunity for mitigation plantings. Mr. Wallace made a motion to permit removal of the trees with 200% mitigation as described with every effort to move the garage to save the trees currently shown in the footprint. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried. 5. 115 Guildford Drive – Removal of thirty Pine trees. The applicant stated she hopes this will be their forever home so they desire room for the backyard to grow with the family with a pool and a volley ball court. A list of the trees evaluated was provided. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve removal of trees #1, 3, 5, 8, 12 and 24. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Wallace made a motion to deny removal of trees #14, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion carried. The applicant stated the volley ball court would not be regulation size but would be an area large enough for playing and also wants room for a fire pit. Mr. Sott stated there appeared to be open space to allow a fire pit; questioned type of apron for pool. Applicant said textured concrete. The pool company stated the trees on the right side need to be removed for access to construct the pool which would be regraded and landscaped according to the plan. Discussion ensued regarding the remaining trees and the impact of the pool construction. Mr. Salisbury questioned when the pool is to be put in, willing to wait on decision for other trees? The applicant stated it would be installed in April or May and a six-foot privacy fence would be installed immediately along the property line. Mr. Wallace wants to revisit the site with reflagging and volleyball court and firepit marked out with spray paint; he made a motion to table the rest of the trees until there is a better understanding of the locations of the volley ball and fire pit areas. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion carried.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, November 11, 2020 Miscellaneous: Mr. Sott asked for clarification on mitigation requirements. Ms. Shuler explained the ordinance requirements. Mr. Morris then questioned the meeting of all of the members at a property. Ms. Shuler stated there cannot be a quorum outside of the scheduled meeting. Mr. Wallace asked for clarification on trees already approved under a different owner, and Ms. Shuler explained that a permit was issued to a specific person, so a new permit would be required. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 am on a motion by Mr. Sott and a second by Mr. Wallace. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Date: November 30, 2020 Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair _________________________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair _________________________________________