Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA December 12, 2022 – 9:00 AM Town Hall, Town Council Chambers The meeting will be live-streamed through the live-streaming link on the Town’s website: www.summervillesc.gov For additional information regarding items on this agenda including any public hearings, please contact the Planning Department at planning@summervillesc.gov or 843.998.3811. Applications and related documents for this meeting are available for review at any time at www.summervillesc.gov/AgendaCenter. Approval of Minutes November 7, 2022 minutes Old Business 1. 108 Royal Troon Court – Removal of four Pine trees New Business 1. 547 Wynfield Forest Drive – Removal of one Pine tree 2. 420 Woodward Boulevard – Removal of four Pine trees 3. 129 Canaberry Court – Removal of two Magnolia trees 4. Pine Trace Natural Area – Removal of 71 Pine, 40 Oak, and 88 other trees for County park Miscellaneous Adjournment Posted, December 7, 2022  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, November 7, 2022 Members Present: Peter Wallace Danny Burbage Claude Burns Staff Present: Becca Zimmerman, Planner II Bill Salisbury, Arborist Nick Wilson, Arborist Remy Clark, Planner I The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the October 10th, 2022 meeting minutes. Mr. Burbage made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented; Mr. Burns made the second. The motion carried unanimously. Old Business: 1. 312 King Charles Circle – Removal of eight trees The property owner was present. The board revisited the application from 312 King Charles Circle looking to remove eight trees for the installation of solar panels. Mr. Wallace began by stating that it was an appropriate and relevant time to move towards solar power, thought the trees around the house complicated the situation. He stated that the 36” oak was the greatest concern. Mr. Wallace requested to view the shading diagram provided by the solar company. The property owner stated that the company was unable to do shade reports for individual trees and had to do reports for clusters of trees. Mr. Burbage stated that it was a complicated issue, making it difficult to issue a fair determination. He went on to explain that the trees on the property were also incredibly important for energy savings when taking into account their shading benefits and other factors. Mr. Burbage also stated that trees were ever-present in the neighborhood and that removing so many trees would have a negative impact for the neighborhood as a whole, possibly decreasing property value. The property owner assured Mr. Burbage that he intended to plant more trees on the property. Mr. Burbage asked if a compromise would be possible, wherein the Board would permit the removal of some trees and save others. The property owner explained that they would not be putting solar panels on the back of  the house and that, besides two of the trees in the backyard, they would like to leave the trees in the back. Mr. Burns asked if trimming the red oak in the front of the property would alleviate some issues. The property owner explained that he would have to discuss that with the solar company, however the tree does shade the front of the house almost entirely. Mr. Burns asked if the shading reports took into account winter weather and seasons with no foliage on the trees. The property owner confirmed that it did. Mr. Wallace asked if the property owner would be willing to accept a compromise. The property owner said he would, though his largest concern was the red oak in the front of the property. Mr. Burbage asked to see the shading report for the side of the house. He asked if the property owner knew what the impact of removal of the pine in the back of the property would be. The property owner reiterated that the shading report did not study individual trees, however removing the cluster of trees on the side of the property would result in a 27% energy cost offset. Mr. Burbage presented the idea of approving removal of the red oak and retaining as many trees as possible. The property owner asked if he was referring to the tree clusters on the front and side of the property. Mr. Wallace clarified that he was referring to trees 1, 2, 3, and 7. The property owner said he would be okay with that, but would need to confirm with the solar company. Mr. Burbage asked if the property owner would like a decision or if he would want to discuss with the solar company and return at a later date. The property owner stated that he wanted a decision. Mr. Burns inquired about mitigation requirements. Mrs. Zimmerman explained the Town’s mitigation requirements. Discussion regarding mitigation continued. Mr. Burbage made a motion to approve the removal of trees 1, 2, 3, and 7 with the stipulation that the applicant select two trees from the Town list of recommended trees to be planted in the front yard. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace moved to amend the motion so that a canopy tree is also planted in the backyard. The amendment passed 3-0. The motion passed 3-0. New Business: 1. 101 Dan Miler Lane – Removal of fifteen trees The property owner was present. The property owner explained that their plans for a driveway had changed since applying for the permit and that the driveway would be a separate issue. They explained that, for the time being, they wished to focus on six trees that were diseased or presenting a danger. Mr. Wallace asked if there were still fifteen trees up for consideration. The property owner explained that they were removing three trees from consideration. Mr. Wallace explained that it was difficult to evaluate without a plan for the driveway as it sounded like plans had changed, thus making it unproductive to review the trees. Mr. Burns stated that, upon the board’s site visit, there were certainly trees that could need to be removed but that he needed a better idea of which trees they had in mind. The property owner stated that the trees marked with green tape were the ones slated for removal. Mr. Wallace expressed his desire to return to the property for further review. The Board agreed to move consideration of the application to the December 12th, 2022 meeting. 2. 408 N Palmetto Street – Removal of one Pine tree The property owner was present. The property owner explained that every time there is inclement weather, limbs fall onto the roof of the home. She stated that the roof has been damaged from limbs falling. The Board explained that the branched of the tree need pruning and that they did not see any evidence of damage to the tree. The property owner stated that the tree had been pruned the previous year. Mr. Burbage expressed his opinion that there was no need to remove the tree and that he could find no reason to remove it. Mr. Salisbury stated that there had been a limb hanging from the tree from the previous storm. Mr. Wallace explained that large trees require maintenance, not necessarily removal. Mr. Burns asked if an arborist had performed the trimming. The property owner stated that someone had come and trimmed it. Mr. Burns confirmed that the tree looked healthy and that it should not be an issue. Mr. Wallace motioned to deny removal and recommend professional pruning from an arborist who can adequately assess the tree. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 108 Royal Troon Court – Removal of four Pine trees The property owner was present. Mr. Wallace explained that the Board had discussed the application with the applicant during the site visit. He mentioned three letters from three different tree companies. He stated that while the letters were a bit confusing, he understood the desire to remove the trees. Mr. Burbage stated that the tree that had its top blown out could be removed with no problems. He went on to state that he saw nothing in the other trees that indicated necessity for removal. He pointed out that the arborist reports did not explain anything specific regarding the structural soundness of the trees. Mr. Burbage explained that one letter recommended a potentially unsound tree due to its codominant leader. He went on the explain that a skilled arborist would need to inspect the crotch of the tree and that it could not just be assumed that it was hazardous. Mr. Burbage also stated that there was no evidence of roots impacting the shed on the property. The property owner asked about tree 1, which fell on her house during Hurricane Ian. Mr. Wallace expressed a desire to reassess tree 2 as well. The property owner explained that tree 2 had insect damage. She also expressed her desire to complete the permitting process by going through the proper channels and that she was only looking to ensure the safety of her property. The property owner stated that trees 1 and 3 had already been approved, and that trees 2 and 4 were the ones up for consideration. Mr. Salisbury clarified that he told her he could approve 1 and 3 at staff level or that all the trees could go to Tree Protection Board. As such, all the trees were up for consideration. Mr. Burns stated that trees 2 and 4 were in good shape and that the applicant should return if there were issues with them down the road. The property owner explained that tree 2 has growth on one side and that if trees 1 and 3 were removed, there would be no wind barrier protecting the tree and that its roots would become weaker. Mr. Wallace conceded that it was a relevant point. Mr. Burbage asked if the applicant would be willing to permit the Board to have a second look at the trees on the 7th of December. Mr. Salisbury explained that the Board could make a special appointment. Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve tree 1 and to reevaluate the remaining trees at a later date. Mr.  Salisbury stated that the Board should reevaluate all the trees at once. The Board agreed and decided to address the application at the next meeting. 4. 207 Niblick Road – Removal of one Pine and one Gum tree The property owner, as well as Nathaniel Rice from Southern Roots Tree Service, were present. The owner explained that lightning had impacted the trees. Mr. Wallace asked how recently the strike had occurred. The owner explained that she was not sure. Mr. Wallace referred to photos Mr. Rice had taken of the trees, stating that the damage was hidden well. Mr. Burbage asked Mr. Rice what he’d observed in his assessment. Mr. Rice described a large build up of sap in a vertical line midway up the trunk as well as scarring on the tree. Mr. Rice explained that it was starting to deteriorate in multiple locations and that tree was definitely under stress. Discussion of the damage continued. Mr. Rice stated that if it were his tree, he would take it out and that waiting to remove the trees would only be delaying the inevitable. Mr. Burbage asked how deep the decay of the trees was. Mr. Rice stated that it was fairly new as the tree was still solid on the outside. Mr. Rice described the structurally unsound trunk of the pine. Mr. Burns asked if the property owners would be planting more trees in the yard. The property owner confirmed that they would be planting 10 to 15 trees around the property and neighboring property. Mr. Burbage stated that he saw the issue with the pine, but wanted to wait and see for the gum. The owner asked if pruning the roots of the gum tree was an option. Mr. Wallace confirmed that it was certainly an option. Mr. Rice stated that he believed pruning the roots would cause root rot. Mr. Burbage respectfully disagreed, arguing that it could be done with little impact. The owner asked if they could mitigate with a different native tree. Mr. Burns explained that it would be an inch for inch mitigation. Discussion continued. Mr. Burbage made a motion to approve both trees for removal, provided there is appropriate mitigation of 2.5” to 3” caliper trees planted on either one or both of the properties. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 5. 201 Central Avenue – Removal of one Oak tree No representative was present. Mr. Burbage stated that he saw no reason to remove the tree. Mr. Wallace explained that the situation would be different if the tree were challenging the foundation of the property. He went on to state that they would need to see a professional evaluation of the tree’s impact. Mr. Wallace motioned to deny removal of the tree. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 6. 420 Woodward Blvd – Removal of four Pine trees Since the Tree Protection Board fee was unpaid for this item, it was not reviewed. 7. 100 Kapalua Run – Removal of two Pine trees The property owner and a representative from the pool installation company were present. Mr. Wallace explained that this application was a concurrent discussion about impervious paving along with the consideration of the trees. He asked if there was  anything new regarding the impervious paving in the rear of the property. The representative explained that they would be removing the concrete patio and redoing the whole area. Ms. Zimmerman expressed the need for a site plan showing the plan is meeting impervious surface requirements. The representative assured the Board that they would be staying within the 35% requirement. Mr. Burbage asked if there was any way to move the proposed pool to protect the trees. The representative explained that this was not possible, but that they would be willing to mitigate as needed. Mr. Wallace noted that there was little room remaining in the rear of the property but that mitigation would be required. Ms. Zimmerman explained that since the lot was .84 acres, 34 caliper inches of trees were required. The owner stated that they already have 44” from two maples, an elm, a river birch, and two crepe myrtles. Ms. Zimmerman stated that these trees would need to be shown on a site plan with proper dimensions to ensure requirements were met. The property owner explained that the pool was placed in such a manner so as to minimize leaves from trees on neighboring properties falling into the pool. Mr. Burbage and Mr. Wallace stated that this did not seem like a great reason to remove two grand trees. Mr. Burbage asked what the potential mitigation would be. Mr. Wallace explained there may not be any since the caliper inches requirement would still be met after removal. The property owner stated that the patio, fireplace, and pavers would be removed to make up for the installation of the pool. Mr. Wallace motioned to approve removal contingent upon the satisfaction of caliper inch requirements for the property. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 8. 547 Wynfield Forest Drive – Removal of one Pine tree Since the Tree Protection Board fee was unpaid for this item, it was not reviewed. Other Business The Board discussed mitigation requirements and their applicability moving forward. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:56 am on a motion by Mr. Burbage and a second by Mr. Wallace. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Date:___________________ Bill Salisbury Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Mr. Wallace, Chair____________________________; or, Ms. Campbell, Vice Chair_______________________  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting November127,2022 December 2022 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: October 3,2022 December 12 12/5/2022 2022 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Jamie Moore Owner: Jamie Moore Requested Action: Removal of four Pine trees Location: 108 Royal Troon Court 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 – 23” Pine, broken top #2 – 19” Pine, looks healthy #3 – 22” Pine, limbs have broken out #4 – 27” Pine, healthy, close to shed Owner states #1 fell during a storm, #3 the top is damaged, #4 is 4’ from shed. All four are within 15’ of the house which causes a hazard and is a safety risk.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting November12 December 7, 2022 2022 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: October 12,2022 December 12 12/5/2022 2022 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: George Eglian Owner: George Eglian Requested Action: Removal of one Pine tree Location: 547 Wynfield Forest 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 – 30” Pine, healthy Owner is concerned about root rot, girdled roots and pine bores.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting December 12, 2022 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: October 11, 2022 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Nick Powell Owner: Nick Powell Requested Action: Removal of four Pine trees Location: 420 Woodward Blvd 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 – 22” Pine, healthy #2 – 20” Pine, healthy #3 – 31” Pine, lightning strikes #4 – 23” Pine, leaning Owner is worried about storms causing damage to home if they fall.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting December 12 2022 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 12/5/2022 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Carolina Tree Trimmers Owner: Morris & Elizabeth Lewis Requested Action: Removal of two Magnolia grandiflora Location: 129 Canaberry Ct 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 – Magnolia grandiflora (Healthy) #2 – Magnolia grandiflora (Healthy)  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting December 12 2022 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: ADC Engineering, Inc. Owner: Warren Pruitt Requested Action: Tree Removals for Establishment of Pine Trace Natural Area Location: 1540000073 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: The permit is for the removal of 199 total trees. Trees to be removed are 71 Pinus spp., 40 Quercus spp., and 88 “other” for the purpose of establishing a naturalized county park area.