Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, March 8, 2021 Members Present: 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 9:07 am. Ms. Campbell asked for consideration of the February 8, 2021 meeting minutes. Ms. Reilly made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented, and Mr. Wallace made the second. The motioned carried. Old Business 1. 1899 Bacon’s Bridge Road – Removal of trees for construction of charter school Casey Warfield with Kimley-Horn presented. Mr. Wallace stated there is a reluctance to issue permits based on conditional approval because no other permits have been approved at this time. Mr. Warfield stated all permits appear to be conditional on one another; however, if approval to remove trees is granted, no trees will be removed until everything has been permitted. He asked about the possibility of giving the applicant some level of comfort like preliminary approval. There was discussion regarding permits needed, status of approvals, mitigation requirements, difference between calculations based on ordinance requirements and calculations based on site. Mr. Wallace asked when the Corp of Engineers permit would be issued. Mr. Warfield stated he believed it would be next month. He also stated it is in the best interest of both parties for the trees to survive, if relocated on the site. Mr. Salisbury asked the committee if there were any issues with the landscape plan or whether there are any grand trees they would want saved. Ms. Reilly stated she would like to see larger trees planted back; the committee agreed the species selection was acceptable with the exception of a Sycamore (Mr. Wallace). Ms. Reilly made a motion to defer approval until the Corp of Engineers permit is issued. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace stated only small changes may need to be made when it moves forward. Tyler asked about TPB approval after Corp approval. Ms. Campbell stated it would be the TPB meeting following the Corp permit. Ms. Campbell asked for a vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously. New Business 1. 401 Beaufort Street – Removal of two Oak and one Magnolia trees Jerry Runion presented. He is requesting removal of three trees in order to build a house. Ms. Campbell asked about a variance from the BZA for setbacks to allow the house to be moved in order to save the tree. Ms. Shuler stated she could not say if it would be approved; however, it would be a valid reason. Mr. Wallace made a motion to have the owner apply for setback variance to allow the 72” Live Oak to be saved. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace then amended the motion to allow removal of the other oak (if no objection from DOT) and magnolia, Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Ms. Reilly stated she did not believe there would be enough room even with a setback variance; trying to go from a two-story house to a one story house. She does not believe it will work with the Live Oak. Ms. Campbell questioned the possibility of altering house plans to accommodate for the tree. Mr. Runion stated that he was unable to find one that works and this is what they want for the future; this is where they want to live but do not want the house right on the road. Further discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of moving the house. Mr. Runion stated he tried to buy the lot next door but the owner is not interested in selling; they don’t want to build something they do not like. Ms. Campbell called for a vote on the motion on the table. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion of steps moving forward. Mr. Runion will need to show on paper that the tree cannot be accommodated, exhausting all possibilities before the TPB will approve removal of the grand live oak tree. 2. 139 Caleb Court – Removal of eleven Pine trees Linda Tisdale presented. She stated that she was not aware that it was a wooded lot when house was purchased, and tried to back out of purchase but there were no other lots without trees; she wants to be able to have open space and a garden and flowers. Ms. Campbell stated that regardless of what somebody may have said or done, they are concerned with the trees on the lot. Ms. Reilly stated that she would approve removal of trees #1, 3, 4 & 8 due to location and density. Mr. Morris stated #5 had some equipment damage and #10 was a whip tree with a small crown so he would include those as well. Mr. Wallace stated they cannot just approve to remove the trees all the way back. Mr. Salisbury provided a diagram. Mr. Wallace stated if #11 is included, that would provide a small area to allow sunlight. He made a motion to allow removal of trees 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 & 11. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3 – 1, with Ms. Reilly voting in opposition. 3. 601 Dolphin Drive – Removal of five Pine trees Andree Thornhill presented. He has noticed over the years the trees are beginning to lean toward the house. The trees causing greatest concern are the closest to the house in front and the large one in the back; he understands he may need to compromise. Mr. Wallace pointed out they all saw the defect in the base of the large tree in back, but the two closest to the house have been limbed up more so would consider allowing the one closest to the house (#4). Mr. Morris stated Mr. Salisbury had noted #2 is in poor condition. Mr. Salisbury confirmed it has been overtopped and is leaning but leaning away from the house. Ms. Reilly agrees with allowing removal of tree in rear but none in front. Mr. Morris suggested pruning and raising the canopies on trees #1 and 2. Mr. Wallace suggested removing limbs going towards house. Ms. Reilly made a motion to approve removal of the large tree in the rear, Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. It passed unanimously. 4. 146 Linwood Lane – Removal of one grand Pine tree The applicant was not present. Mr. Wallace made a motion to deny removal of tree, and Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Salisbury recommended removing limbs hanging over garage and vines around tree and to do the same for the magnolia tree. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 825 North Main Street – Removal of two Pine trees No applicant was in attendance. Mr. Morris made the motion to deny removal and advised cleaning vines off tree, and Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 109 Long Cove Bend – Removal of two Gum trees The owner and a Nathaniel Rice from the tree company presented. Mr. Rice stated the central lead on each tree has been overtaken by lateral limbs; wounds healing over as well, signs of root die back. The owner also presented research on sweet gum trees and issues with gum balls - can keep other trees from growing, she is concerned about falling at her age. She would like to plant back a shade tree and some arborvitae. Mr. Morris asked about replacement tree type. Owner stated an oak or Japanese maple and line of arborvitae. Ms. Campbell suggested pruning or limbing up would cut gumballs close to half. The owner had considered this but the tree company advised otherwise. Mr. Rice stated his opinion that if more pruning occurs the tree will decline because it has a low crown to trunk ratio, the trunk is misshapen and lateral overtaking is a sign the central leader is not getting sufficient water. The owner had data regarding hip fractures. Mr. Wallace suggested hiring kids to rake the yard. The tree company suggested replacing the sweet gum with a white oak or a swamp white oak at 2.5 – 3” caliper; discussion about the invasiveness of sweet gums and his feeling, as a certified arborist, that the trees are unsafe and should be removed. Mr. Salisbury responded with his opinion that the trees are basically healthy and while there is some decline in the crown, it is not currently a threat. Mr. Rice stated the sensibility of removing the trees in decline and replacing with healthy trees. More discussion about raking gumballs and feasibility of it. Mr. Morris questioned the ability to fit two oaks as only two canopy trees in yard. Mr. Rice stated there is a tupelo on the other side of the shed. Both the tree company and Mr. Salisbury stated they would rather see one healthy tree planted than two. Mr. Wallace stated it would need to be bigger than a 20 gallon tree. Mr. Salisbury stated a 45 gallon would be a 3” caliper size, and there is no way to get a larger one back there. Ms. Reilly stated that proper mitigation requirements should be followed, if not doable, then contribution to the tree fund is required. Owner stated tree by shed is within 10’ and roots could cause problems in the future. Ms. Campbell made the motion to allow removal with mitigation with a canopy tree 3” caliper, 45 gallon container, and if not adequate will also contribute to the Tree Fund, and Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:26 am on a motion by Ms. Campbell and a second by Mr. Wallace. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date:___________________ Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair_____________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair________________________