Tree Protection Board

Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 10, 2021 Members Present: Kenny Sott David Morris Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Ginger Reilly Staff Present: Jessie 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 April 12, 2021 meeting minutes. Mr. Wallace made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented. Ms. Reilly seconded the motion. The motioned carried. Old Business 1. 201 Simmons Avenue – Ashley Smith is appealing the mitigation required for the 36” pine that was removed so she could build her home. She has a landscape plan and has bought some trees. The neighbor behind her, Mr. Runion, was allowed to remove a 72” Oak tree with no mitigation and is requesting zero mitigation for herself for the 36” Pine. Mr. Sott asked if the Pine tree was in the footprint of her house. She said it was, at the corner, and there was no way to move the house without damaging a 40” Oak tree which she spent $4300.00 to preserve. Mr. Wallace recalled that discussion and disagrees that the house could have been moved without compromising the Oak tree, and he does not feel the Pine was in the footprint. Ms. Smith repeated that the tree was in the footprint and had sustained damage from an earlier lightning strike; stated rules should be applied evenly. Mr. Sott stated the drawing appears to show the base of the tree is outside the footprint but the canopy would hang over the house. Ms. Campbell stated Ms. Smith had refused to move the house. Ms. Smith repeated that the house had previously been designed to save another Oak; however, she wanted the house centered on the lot with room for a pool; she could not be forced to move or redesign the house. Mr. Wallace stated if the tree was in the footprint, no mitigation is required, it is in the ordinance. Ms. Smith stated if it is in 10’ of the house. Mr. Wallace stated it is not automatic. Mr. Sott asked Ms. Shuler to speak to the 10’ rule. Ms. Shuler stated it is not written down, it is a rule of thumb that has been used by the TPB for many years and was noted on the website as a general rule that was used. Mr. Salisbury stated the tree was not in the footprint. Ms. Smith asked how the ruling is determined for mitigation. Mr. Sott explained that on the house site adjacent to hers, Mr. Runion’s, the tree was completely in the footprint whereas hers was not; the TPB Committee tries to follow the rules evenly, and noted there were other trees that she was allowed to remove without mitigation for the driveway. Ms. Smith repeated her question about how she was supposed to move the house and save the Oak tree. She has a letter stating it could not be done. Mr. Wallace repeated that she was allowed to remove other trees. Mr. Sott asked if she was meeting the 160” requirement. Ms. Shuler said yes, and asked Ms. Smith to go over what is to be planted. Ms. Smith stated she will be planting three Little Gem Magnolias, Crepe Myrtles, Oak tree, two Magnolias, two more Crepe Myrtles, two Loquats. Mr. Sott questioned if there are three canopy Magnolias as well as a Sawtooth Oak. Ms. Smith also asked about counting understory trees as well. Mr. Salisbury stated two understory trees count as one canopy tree. Mr. Sott mentioned there was a statement in the arborist report noting root damage from previous work. Ms. Smith confirmed it was from a Pine tree falling. Mr. Salisbury stated 36” is not on top of what is required. Mr.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 10, 2021 Sott asked for discussion about a check being provided, Mr. Salisbury discussed, and stated he would not hold up CO for planting, Mr. Sott asked for discussion of trees being planted and trees being preserved, not for punitive damages, just for clarification. Mr. Wallace made a motion to apply credit to what staff agrees upon to count towards the 36”, Ms. Campbell seconded the motion (0-100%). Ms. Reilly stated the decision is to whether to require 36” mitigation, she maintains to require 100% mitigation. Ms. Smith stated she is not willing to pay extra money for cutting a tree to put her house in but wants a beautiful yard. Mr. Sott stated it is his hope that nothing will be required beyond what is already being planned; for Ms. Smith to continue doing what she plans to do. The vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously. New Business 1. 108 Plantation Drive – Owner presented. She planted these two trees and did not plan for their growth; roots have been coming up higher since she removed the ivy; does not live here full time; every time she comes she notices the difference. Carolina Tree Trimmers were hired to trim them but they did not want to trim, only wanted to cut them down without a permit. Mr. Salisbury stated when he originally looked at the trees, the owner did not want to go before TPB because she was going back home, so it was topped, which is illegal. The owner stated she did not know it was illegal to top, the roots were also pruned to control growth. Mr. Sott stated the tree on the right had caused damage to the sidewalk and possibly the foundation; the tree on the left, being further from the house, can have the roots pruned away from the house. Mr. Wallace asked if the owner is asking to remove both trees. She stated no, happy to leave tree on left. Mr. Wallace stated she should root prune the left tree but encourages her to have it done professionally, if doing it herself then only to prune those roots heading toward the house. Mr. Salisbury added not to prune more than 20% of the roots. Ms. Reilly and Ms. Campbell both stated a professional should know the rules. The owner asked if needing to pay or mitigate if given permission to remove the tree on the right. Ms. Campbell stated that topping the tree does not help the roots. The owner stated she was using the bonsai theory to try to control growth. Mr. Sott made a motion to allow removal of tree on the right side; Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 116 Alwyn – Owner presented. This tree is a stud but roots are a tripping hazard, also concern about heading toward foundation and neighbor’s driveway. Ms. Campbell suggested root pruning at the foundation as well as at the end of the driveway. It is a beautiful Sycamore tree. The owner is worried about how much can or cannot be done with root pruning. Mr. Wallace stated that is hard to answer but would think most problems would be the roots on top. The owner asked if only trimming, how much could be done. Mr. Salisbury advised no more than 20% of canopy. Mr. Wallace stated the large horizontal limbs could be pruned and not exceed 20%. The owner is also concerned about the power easement and damaging the lines when pruning roots. Mr. Sott suggested root pruning at foundation and neighbor’s driveway is very feasible and could easily be done; owner could come back if it does not work. Mr. Salisbury also suggested closer to the tree, mulch over the area rather than filling. The owner is also concerned about damaging the road in the future. Mr. Salisbury stated the roads had recently been repaved by Town; he thinks the owner could cut the roots about 10’ from the house but right up next to the driveway. Ms. Campbell pointed out the committee’s job is to exhaust all other options before allowing for removal. Mr. Wallace made the motion to not approve removal but encouraged root and limb pruning as suggested. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 10, 2021 3. 136 Helen Drive – Owner presented. Three Gum trees in front, worried they will continue to cause foundation issues because he has already spent $16,000 on foundation repairs; he rolled his ankle on gum balls in backyard which limited ability to work in his real estate business. Mr. Sott asked where the damage to the foundation was located. The tree service rep. said the damage was primarily in the center, but they also added access to the crawl space. The owner stated the water meter is in the front yard as well as power lines; the tree leans significantly to the right, he loves the trees but they are dangerous. He would like to add a pool, and would like to be able to replant some trees, an Oak or Maple if it needs to be a certain size; he also has rheumatoid arthritis and it is difficult for him to keep up with maintenance of gum balls; he has attempted to get a plan for a pool but all companies are booked up even for estimates. Tree service rep. restated the safety concerns, trees in front are about 12’ from power lines; anyone crossing the yard could roll ankle on gum balls; keeping White Oak on other side of shed. Mr. Sott stated the tree boxed in has significant roots heading toward the house, also understands the concern with power lines. Mr. Wallace added the trees in front are a threat, particularly the two at 3’ and 9.5’ distance. Mr. Morris stated they are leaning away from the house. Mr. Wallace is not comfortable with removing trees prior to pool being submitted for approval; he would save money if he had a yard person remove the gum balls. The owner stated it is less expensive to remove trees all at once. Ms. Campbell suggested revisiting rear trees once the pool plan has been submitted. Mr. Wallace made a motion to permit removal of trees 1 and 2 in the front left and right at this time and leave tree 3 and the 3 trees in the rear. The owner is still concerned about further damage to foundation and would replant with less invasive trees. The tree service rep. mentioned the previous foundation work on beams and joists where the third tree is located. Mr. Wallace stated he found it hard to believe the damage was caused by the tree 14’ from that house and that the roots can be pruned. The owner asked for an answer to his question about replanting. Mr. Sott explained because the tree is healthy it would require 100% mitigation depending on the size of the tree; if 20” cal., it would require 7-8 trees. Mr. Wallace made the motion to allow removal of tree 1 & 2, and tree 3 can be removed with 100% mitigation at the owner’s discretion. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 911 Essex Drive – The owner presented. The tree on the right has caused driveway to step up; soil issues in neighborhood also causing other trees to fall over. Mr. Sott asked whether the area had been dug up to see if roots are causing lifting. The owner said no, but there are large roots on the other side of the driveway. Mr. Sott asked about the other tree (#1). The owner stated she is concerned about the lean of it with the slope of the yard and other trees falling over; there is standing water in yard after rainstorms. Mr. Sott did not recall seeing significant lean. Mr. Wallace stated some pruning could be done on the side of the lean, but not any significant forking. Ms. Campbell commented with the removal of trees the standing water will be worse. The owner is wanting to amend the soil and plant more appropriate tree for front yard. Mr. Sott made a motion to approve removal of tree #2 but preserve tree #1. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 648 Alwyn Blvd – No owner was present. Ms. Reilly made a motion to deny. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 316 Savannah River Drive – The owner presented. Two trees are in very close proximity to the house; root pruning already done close to sidewalk, Water Oaks – growths on roots and a lot of overhang on house; concern about foundation being compromised and severe damage to roof due to proximity; the Maple tree had no leaves and then suddenly leafed out, the main concern is electrical lines running underneath. Mr. Wallace asked if the house is on a slab.  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, May 10, 2021 The owner stated it is. Depth of feeder line questioned, as it would take a lot of time for Oak roots to have damaged line; it goes right behind the tree; it is a wonderful tree and Mr. Wallace would need more convincing that the line has been compromised before approving removal. Ms. Campbell suggested the possibility of limbing up the trees; the TPB’s goal is to protect the trees as much as possible. The owner understands this but is concerned about the house. Mr. Sott agreed with Mr. Wallace on the Red Oak tree and the Maple tree is thriving. Mr. Wallace made a motion to allow removal of two Water Oaks and to preserve the Red Oak and Maple trees. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 211 Thames – No owner was present. Ms. Reilly made a motion to approve. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: 1. Question about two for one 2. Question about 10’ distance – Mr. Sott stated page 260 of the UDO does include the 10’ perimeter but stated effort must be made 3. Discussion ensued regarding mitigation requirements, i.e., canopy vs. understory trees ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. on a motion by Mr. Wallace and a second by Ms. Campbell. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Date: June 1, 2021 Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Kenny Sott, Chair _________________________________________; or, Faye Campbell, Vice Chair _________________________________________