Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, January 11, 2021 Members Present: Peter Wallace David Morris Kenny Sott Ginger Reilly Faye Campbell Staff Present: Jessi Shuler, Director of Planning Bill Salisbury, Arborist The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Mr. Sott asked for consideration of the December 7, 2020 meeting minutes. Mr. Wallace made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented, and Ms. Reilly made the second. The motioned carried. Old Business 1. 115 Guilford Drive – Removal of trees #1, 5-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-22, 25-28 Applicant explained plans for yard. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve trees #3, 8, 5, 7, 12, 17, 26 and 30 for removal, if during construction tree #6 roots sustain too much damage, can be removed at Bill’s decision. Mr. Sott pointed out that one tree had been left out - #23. Ms. Reilly and the others agreed about #23, and Mr. Wallace agreed to add that tree to his motion. Mr. Morris seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 2. 205 E. 6th South Street – Removal of 4 Pines, 1 Oak, 2 Cedars and 4 others Applicant explained revised design removing driveway on right-hand side to allow more trees to remain. He would like to remove trees in footprint and the driveway on left. Discussion ensued about the trees along the driveway. Mr. Sott agreed with trees in the footprint and driveway, and the additional dead tree on left. Mr. Wallace voiced concern about protecting the trees that will not be removed while the others are removed; concern about the contractor being careful. The applicant stated there is an extra construction driveway being used for that purpose. Mr. Morris made a motion to approve trees in footprint of house and the three along the revised driveway (12” oak, 14” and 16” pine). Mr. Wallace seconded the motion, and the motion carried. Mr. Salisbury will flag the trees to avoid questions. New Business 1. 629 Alwyn - Removal of 11 trees There was no applicant present; Mr. Wallace stated not all of trees can be removed. Tree #2 whose main root source is growing towards the house is okay to remove, 7, 3, 6, and 10 he is also comfortable with removal on. Ms. Campbell questioned why approval of #6 as she did not see any issue with it. Mr. Wallace stated he had no other notation so removal may be incorrect. There are a lot of dead branches that need to be pruned out; withdraw #6 for removal. Mr. Sott stated #9 had a large fissure. Ms. Reilly agreed with removal of 2, 3, and 9 because of cat face, undecided about #10 as she did not find the lean significant. She made a motion to approve #2, 3 and 9, Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. Mr. Sott amended the motion to include #10 because of the lean. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace questioned reason for #10. Mr. Sott stated the lean was significant and pruning limbs off to balance would be too much. Mr. Sott called for the question on the amendment. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Reilly voted no; Ms. Campbell, Mr. Morris and Mr. Sott voted yes. Mr. Sott then called for the question on the amended motion. Mr. Wallace voted no; Ms. Campbell, Ms. Reilly, Mr. Morris and Mr. Sott voted yes. The amended motion carried. 2. 201 Parkwood Drive – Removal of one Pine tree. No applicant was present. Mr. Sott stated they tried to do everything they could to accommodate the pool but could not, and they do have some large trees in the front yard. Ms. Reilly stated the tree wasn’t interfering structurally with the pool, only the decking which is flexible; the main concern is needles and pine cones in the pool. Mr. Salisbury suggested pavers instead of concrete for the decking; applicant is also wanting to put in a garage but has not submitted permit yet. Mr. Wallace stated the applicant mentioned mitigation as well. Mr. Morris stated he is on the fence because there are a lot of constraints. Ms. Campbell stated the owner has been very cooperative. Mr. Sott made a motion to allow removal based on location and require two live oak trees be planted in the back. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried with Ms. Reilly voting no. 3. 185 Bamert Street – Removal of 2 Pine trees. Mr. Wallace stated there is one big tree that needed pruning and another with a ramicorn (leader) that he would be okay with them removing. Applicant stated about two years ago the owners had an oak tree fall on the house and cannot determine which way a tree may fall; it is about 15’ from son’s bedroom. Mr. Sott agreed with Mr. Wallace’s assessment, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Morris also agree. Mr. Wallace made a motion for pruning of #2 and removal of #1. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace stated the tree is very stout and while he understands the concerns the owner has, a tree’s potential to be a danger is not reason enough for removal unless there are defects present or it is too close to the house. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. It was stated to the applicant that while the one tree is being removed, the other one can be evaluated by an arborist. If any defect is found, the removal of the second tree can be revisited. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 am on a motion by Ms. Campbell 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________________________