Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA January 9, 2023 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. Public that chooses to attend this meeting in person will be strongly encouraged to wear a mask and abide by social distancing requirements. Approval of Minutes December 12, 2022 minutes Old Business 1. 420 Woodward Blvd- Removal of 3 Pines (Pinus spp.) New Business 1. 155 Droze Rd.- Removal of 864 trees for the purpose of “New Townhouse Community Development” 2. 101 Towhee Dr.- Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) DBH 26” 3. 122 Caleb Ct.- Removal of 5 Pines (Pinus taeda/palustris) 4. 209 W 6th North St.- Removal of 1 Water Oak (Quercus nigra) DBH 35” 5. 302 Rutherford St.- Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus spp.) and 1 Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora). Miscellaneous Adjournment Posted January 4, 2023  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, December 12, 2022 Members Present: Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Danny Burbage Claude Burns David Morris Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Remy Clark, Planner I The meeting was called to order at 9:01 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the October 10th, 2022 meeting minutes. Mr. Burns made a motion for approval of the minutes as presented; Mr. Burbage made the second. The motion carried unanimously. Old Business: 1. 108 Royal Troon Court – Removal of four Pine trees The property owner was present. Mr. Wallace began by acknowledging that there had already been a number of discussions between the Board and the applicant, as well as two site visits. Mr. Wallace asked if the property owner had anything to add and asked for a statement from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson explained that trees 1 and 3 had been damaged by the top falling out of tree 2. He went on to describe tree 4 as healthy, though its proximity to the shed on the property could be an issue. Mr. Burbage stated that he had no issue removing trees 1, 2, and 3, but that he could not endorse the removal of tree 4 considering its health and the fact that no roots were growing towards the shed or its foundation. Mr. Burns expressed his agreement, adding that the applicant could return if tree 4 began causing issues. The property owner expressed her concern that the tree would be denied and then cause damage to her home. She explained that the same tree had been approved by the Tree Protection Board in 2019 and that it seemed arbitrary to deny it now. She added that it was also easier financially to remove all of the trees at once. Mr. Wallace stated that, while he understood the history of the tree, the current  board is different than the one in 2019 and cannot be expected to hold the same opinions. Mr. Wallace acknowledged that the tree is a healthy tree and not the kind of tree that is going to break. He added that all trees have potential liability and to remove every tree with a chance of liability would leave the Town bare. The property owner expressed her support of preserving trees and offered a compromise whereby she donates trees to the Town of Summerville as mitigation. She also acknowledged, however, that donating trees to the Town was no longer permitted following an act of Town Council. Mr. Wallace reiterated that there was no reason to worry about tree 4 coming down. The property owner expressed concerns about the tree’s proximity to the shed and the pacing on the property. Mr. Wallace suggested installing a barrier at the foundation. The property owner felt that even digging the trench for the barrier would negatively impact the tree. Ms. Campbell stated that it would be less expensive to move the shed than to remove the tree. Mr. Burbage added that the trench that would be used to prune the roots of the tree would only need to be 6 to 8 inches wide and that it would not require large equipment. Mr. Wallace suggested another possibility: altering the shape of the patio in order to accommodate the root map of the tree. He added that, should the Board remove tree 2, he would like to recommend mitigation for the tree in accordance with the mitigation letter emailed to the applicant. Considering the size of the lot, Mr. Wallace conceded that the Board would not require inch for inch mitigation, but rather at least one tree planted to replace tree 2. Ms. Campbell asked the owner if she could move the shed should the Board opt to preserve tree 4. The property owner explained that the shed was built in 2001 and is situated on a foundation, making it difficult to move and likely requiring demolition/reconstruction. Ms. Campbell reiterated that it was worth looking into the possibility of moving the shed. Mr. Burbage made a motion to approve trees 1, 2, and 3, with mitigation for tree 2 to be a 2.5” minimum caliper tree, and to preserve tree 4. Mr. Burns asked to clarify that the tree for mitigation would be a canopy tree. Mr. Burbage confirmed that it would be. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. New Business: 1. 547 Wynfield Forest Drive – Removal of one Pine tree No representative was present. Mr. Wallace asked if there was any further discussion regarding the tree. Mr. Morris stated that it was a very healthy tree. Mr. Wallace added that it could use some pruning for balance, but was otherwise healthy. Mr. Burns moved to deny the removal of the pine. Mr. Burbage seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 2. 420 Woodward Blvd – Removal of four Pine trees The property owner was present. Mr. Wallace explained that they came for the site visit, but no one was home. The property owner stated that she did not receive the email with the site visit schedule. As a result, the Board and the property owner agreed to revisit the application at the January 9th, 2023 meeting. 3. 129 Canaberry Cir – Removal of two Magnolia trees No representative was present. Mr. Burns explained that both Magnolias looked to be in good health and that the Board had discussed root pruning with the property owner. He added that there was no reason to remove the trees at this time. Ms. Campbell stated her agreement. Mr. Wallace added that, while the application mentioned that the trees were threatening utility lines, there was no evidence to show that the trees presented any threat. Mr. Burns made a motion to deny removal of two Magnolias. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Pine Trace Natural Area – Removal of 71 Pine, 40 Oak, and 88 other trees for County Park A representative was present. The representative stated that the property in question was a 300-acre parcel scheduled to be a Dorchester County park. He went on to explained that the majority of the trees set for removal are located in the path of a planned access road and an area around a welcome center. He added that if the road was moved to save trees, equally good trees would still need to be removed. Mr. Wallace expressed his desire for a better image of the project, adding that the Board was unaware of the project until the site visit. Mr. Wallace explained that they were not able to fully assess the project during the site visit due to time constraints. Mr. Wallace asked what trees would be remaining after removing trees to make way for the road and welcome center. The representative stated that the vast majority of the land would be preserved. He explained that the forest is an Oak-Hickory forest with some patches of Beech and that they were trying to preserve as much of the Beech as possible. He added that they were preserving as many communities of trees as they could. The representative went on to state that not much would be going on the site besides the road and that the walking trails had been cleared previously. Mr. Burns inquired about the community garden area. The representative stated that he had not received much direction from the County regarding the community garden. Mr. Burns asked when there would be more details. The representative responded that he was unsure of the status of the community garden. Mr. Burns asked for clarification that tree disturbance would be primarily around the road and community garden. Mr. Wallace added that there would be disturbance around the planned dog park as well. The representative stated that only a couple of trees were set to be removed for the dog park, as they would mostly be clearing brush and preserving grand trees. Mr. Burbage expressed concern that a community garden with no entity spearheading it would go to waste. He added that he would hate to see trees removed for a garden that would not be maintained. Mr. Burbage pontificated sharing with the County that it could be an opportunity to nix the garden and preserve more natural areas. The representative expressed agreement that the garden does not fit with the site, but added that that was his personal opinion and that it is his client’s project, not his own. Mr. Burbage stated that any effort the County could make to reduce the number of trees being removed would be beneficial. Mr. Wallace stated that 199 trees was a lot and that the road must be taking the majority of those trees if the dog park and garden were not. The representative calculated about ten trees being removed for the garden and park, adding that there were a number of other structures that would not be requiring any tree removals for construction. Mr. Burns acknowledged that the plan stated 199 trees set for removal and asked if they were grand trees. The representative explained that the trees were 16” and greater DBH. Mr. Burbage asked if they had factored in the water uptake that will be lost due to tree removal and the resulting flooding that could occur should they remove 10% of the property’s trees. Mr. Burbage urged the representative to discuss this matter with their client as it has negatively impacted sites before. Mr. Burbage explained that he would like to see more information regarding stormwater mitigation, carbon sequestration, and habitat area that will be lost. He added that the County has the ability to do a good job while being simultaneously environmentally sensitive, as in the case of Ashley River Park. The representative stated that he would relay the concerns to his client. He added that they would be taking the runoff into account and adding drainage and bioretention in some areas. He explained that they were trying to design for the quantity of water being discharged and that they did not expect to see significant impact from a stormwater perspective. Mr. Macholl, looking to add historical context, explained that the site had previously been the site of a planned subdivision. He added that the Town would be receiving 300 acres of preserve rather than 20 or so, as per the subdivision plan, and that this fact should be weighed in the Board’s decision. Mr. Wallace asked about the ownership history of the site. Mr. Macholl explained the ownership history. Mr. Macholl also stated that the project would be returning to the Design Review Board in January. Mr. Wilson asked if some areas of the preserve would be sectioned off and undisturbed. The representative confirmed that there would be ample preserved land with the notable exception of wetland crossings. The representative added that they attempted to limit wetland crossings as much as possible and that there were only four or five in addition to six miles of natural trails. Mr. Burns asked when they could get more information about the community garden, adding that he did not want to do anything without more information. The representative stated that he appreciated anything that could be done to help their timeline and suggested approving the plan without the community garden and deferring it for a later date. He added that he did not feel the garden was a make-or-break aspect of the plan for his clients. Mr. Wallace stated that the garden is the largest area necessitating the removal of grand trees and that dropping it from the plan would make a big difference. Ms. Campbell stated that the Board did not have enough time to review everything that was needed. The representative explained that the project was applied for two weeks prior to the submittal deadline with full information and that it was not the client’s responsibility to do anything more from a time perspective. Mr. Wilson accepted responsibility, stating that there had been some confusion that was compounded by a change in the Town’s Arborist position. Discussion continued. Mr. Burbage stated that the Board would not be honoring its mission if it approved the project without appropriate scrutiny. Mr. Wallace motioned to defer the project to the January 9th, 2023 meeting with two conditions: that the representative speak with the County about the Board’s reservations and that the Board arrange a special meeting to view the plan in greater detail. The special meeting was schedule for Friday, December 16th, 2022 at 10 am. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 5- 0. Other Business – NONE Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 am on a motion by Mr. Burbage and a second by Mr. Wallace. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Date:___________________ Nick Wilson Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Mr. Wallace, Chair____________________________; or, Ms. Campbell, Vice Chair_______________________  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting November 7, 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 Jan/9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/3/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: JJR Development Owner: Patrick Head Requested Action: Removal of 864 trees total Location: 155 Droze Rd 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. Applicant(s) Reason for Removal: Removal of 864 trees for new community development including 70 new townhomes, clubhouse and internal streets. Staff Evaluation: Mitigation Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Construction Activity/Site Development On interior suburban lots, the combined diameter breast height of the remaining trees must be greater than or equal to 160 inches per acre OR 20 trees per acre, whichever is greater. If this requirement is not met, mitigation is required at the same trees/acre ratio. 12-15-22 Submission to Town of Summerville Tree Board 155 Droze Road – Townhouse Community To Board members and City Staff, Prior to bringing this project to a sketch plan TRC meeting some time ago, we enlisted arborist Mike Little of Natural Directions to grade the grand trees on site and help us come up with a plan for them. Based on his initial review, and our subsequent on-site review with town arborist Bill Salisbury, we have developed a plan for the trees that are to remain. As both noted, the bulk of the trees on site are loblolly pines that have grown up in the center of the property since the time when it was used as farm land, many years ago. As part of this submission, we have included the original tree grading list created by Natural Directions as well as the notes from our subsequent site meeting with Bill Salisbury. Additionally, we have a scope of work created by the arborists that address the list of requests made by Mr. Salisbury. There are a handful of live oak trees around the perimeter that we plan to pay special attention to even though they have some damage from overcrowding caused by other adjacent trees. We have tried to incorporate as many existing grand trees as possible into our landscape plan but would prefer to plant new healthy trees rather than keep diseased or damaged trees. The western side of the site, closest to Parsons Rd, is a non-jurisdictional wetland. The trees in this location, mostly maples and gum trees, are in poor condition because of the moisture and need to be removed. This area will be reclaimed and filled as the wetland was caused by the road installed by the county which will now be fixed. Recently we presented a conceptual submission to the Design Review Board for the proposed new townhouse community which was very well received. We now have our landscape architects working on a new landscape plan to better define the new trees to be planted along the new streets and throughout the community. While this is not yet complete, we have included the conceptual landscape plan that shows the direction we are heading. Our goal is to create a beautiful small community with ample green space and trees. Sincerely, Jeffrey Roberts, Managing Member, JJR Development, LLC Patrick Head, Director of Development, JJR Development, LLC  Droze Road Tree Number DBH (inches) Speices Grade Comments Comments Condition 1 44.5 Live Oak B Decay Hollow Base Good 2 20.5 Live Oak B Lean Good 3 26.5 Live Oak B Good 4 25 Pine D Fusiform Rust Poor 5 22 Pine D Decay Forked Poor 6 19.5 Pine C Crook Fair 7 14 Pine C Fair 8 23 Pine D Fusiform Rust Crook Poor 9 20 Pine D Fusiform Rust Poor 10 21.5 Pine B Good 11 19/24 Pine D Heart Rot Twist Poor 12 22 Pine D Fusiform Rust Poor 13 23 Pine D Fusiform Rust Forked Poor 14 17 Pine C Fair 15 18 Pine D Fusiform Rust Poor 16 21 Pine C Sweep Fair 17 25 Pine C Crook Fair 18 34.5 Live Oak B Good 19 40.5 Live Oak B Good 20 19/21 Live Oak B Good 21 28 Willow Oak D Decay Storm Damage Poor 22 19.5 Live Oak B Good 23 11 Elm D Included Bark Forked Poor 24 22.5 Pine D Sweep Poor Form Poor 25 26 Pine C Fair 26 62 Live Oak B Good 27 36.5 Pine C Included Bark Forked Fair 28 27 Pine C Fair 29 15 Live Oak B Good 30 21 Live Oak B Good 31 9.5 Live Oak C Lean Suppressed Fair 32 10 Live Oak B Lean Suppressed Good 33 10.5 Live Oak B Good Page 1 of 3  Droze Road 34 20 Pine D Crook Poor Form Poor 35 19/28 Live Oak B Lean Good 36 22 Pine B Good 37 21 Pine D Crook Poor Form Poor 38 25 Pine C Twist Fair 39 26 Pine B Good 40 7.5/9 Live Oak B Good 41 24 Willow Oak D Decay Decline Poor 42 25 Live Oak C Included Bark Forked Fair 43 8/25 Live Oak B Lean Good 44 16 Live Oak B Good 45 9/11/13/13 Maple D Stump Sprouts Poor Form Poor 46 11/26 Maple D V Shaped Crotch Included Bark Poor 47 12/13/17/19 Maple D Stump Sprouts Decline Poor 48 9/11/11/12/13.5 Maple D Stump Sprouts Poor 49 14/19 Maple D V Shaped Crotch Decline Poor 50 10/10/11/11.5 Maple D Stump Sprouts Poor 51 46 Maple D Stump Sprouts Poor Form Poor 52 15/23 Maple F Decay Decline Poor 53 14/19.5 Maple D V Shaped Crotch Decay Poor 54 Pecan Pecan C Forked Included Bark Fair Page 2 of 3  Droze Road A Good B Good C Fair D Poor F Poor Page 3 of 3  DROZE ROAD BUILDING ‘E’ BUILDING ‘C’ BUILDING ‘A’ BUILDING ‘G’ INTERNAL ROAD INTERNAL ROAD AMENITY SPACE BUILDING ‘F’ BUILDING ‘D’ BUILDING ‘B’ STORMWATER POND INTERNAL ROAD AMENITY SPACE BUILDING ‘H’ POOL CLUBHOUSE PARKING DRY POND BUILDING ‘N’ KING BUILDING ‘O’ LEL PAR A L R PA INTERNAL ROAD LAWN BUILDING ‘I’ BUILDING ‘M’ BUILDING ‘L’ BUILDING ‘K’ BUILDING ‘J’ INTERNAL ROAD PARALLEL PARKING D R O Z E R OA D - N E W T O W N H O U S E D E V E LO P M E N T PLAN VIEW -CONCEPT 1 0’ 20’ 40’ 60’ 100’ Scale: 1” = 20’-0” NORTH  1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B P.O. BOX 30575 DROZE ROAD CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND PLANNING 155 DROZE ROAD TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA TMS 136-00-00-093 ● ● SITE COVER SHEET SHEET INDEX: ’ C000 - TITLE SHEET C101 - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (1"=20') C102 - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (1"=20') ● ’ ● C201 - EROSION CONTROL PLAN (1"=20') NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ● ● C202 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN(1"=20') C301 - NEW SITE PLAN (1"=20') TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA C401 - GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (1"=20') C402 - GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (1"=20') C501 - EROSION CONTROL AND SWPPP CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C503 - CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 155 DROZE ROAD C504 - CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TMS 136-00-00-093 GADSDEN A. LINTON III DATE OCTOBER 27, 2022 DRAWN/CHECKED CLH/TL LAST REVISED APPROVED TL SCALE 1"=20' PROJECT NO. 5889-1 SHEET NUMBER C000  DATE NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B APPROVED TL 155 DROZE ROAD 5889-1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN P.O. BOX 30575 PROJECT NO. 1" = 20' CLH/TL CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 LAST REVISED (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 JUNE 9, 2022 SHEET NUMBER TMS 136-00-00-093 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING DRAWN/CHECKED AND LAND PLANNING GADSDEN A LINTON III TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA C200  DATE NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B APPROVED TL 155 DROZE ROAD 5889-1 TREE REMOVAL PLAN P.O. BOX 30575 PROJECT NO. 1" = 20' CLH/TL CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 LAST REVISED TMS 136-00-00-093 (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING SHEET NUMBER DRAWN/CHECKED OCTOBER 27, 2022 AND LAND PLANNING GADSDEN A LINTON III TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA C202  DATE NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B APPROVED TL 155 DROZE ROAD 5889-1 NEW SITE PLAN P.O. BOX 30575 PROJECT NO. 1" = 20' CLH/TL CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 LAST REVISED TMS 136-00-00-093 (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING SHEET NUMBER DRAWN/CHECKED OCTOBER 27, 2022 TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA AND LAND PLANNING C301 GADSDEN A. LINTON III  DATE NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 5889-1 PROJECT NO. 1"=20' TL APPROVED 155 DROZE ROAD GRADING AND 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B P.O. BOX 30575 CLH/TL CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 LAST REVISED TMS 136-00-00-093 (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING C401 SHEET NUMBER DRAWN/CHECKED OCTOBER 27, 2022 GADSDEN A. LINTON III TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA DRAINAGE PLAN AND LAND PLANNING  SCDHEC STANDARD SWPPP NOTES 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B SILT FENCE INSTALLATION FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL P.O. BOX 30575 1. IF NECESSARY, SLOPES, WHICH EXCEED EIGHT (8) VERTICAL FEET SHOULD BE STABILIZED WITH SYNTHETIC OR VEGETATIVE MATS, IN ADDITION TO HYDROSEEDING. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO INSTALL TEMPORARY SLOPE DRAINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. TEMPORARY BERMS MAY BE NEEDED UNTIL THE SLOPE IS BROUGHT TO GRADE. PLAN SYMBOL CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 2. STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE IN PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HAVE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED, BUT IN NO CASE MORE THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER WORK HAS CEASED, EXCEPT AS STATED BELOW. (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 ● WHERE STABILIZATION BY THE 14th DAY IS PRECLUDED BY SNOW COVER OR FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS STABILIZATION MEASURES MUST BE INITIATED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. ● WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON A PORTION OF THE SITE IS TEMPORARILY CEASED, AND EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WILL BE RESUMED WITHIN 14 DAYS, TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES DO NOT HAVE TO BE INITIATED ON THAT PORTION OF THE SITE. 3. ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE EVERY CALENDAR WEEK. IF PERIODIC INSPECTION OR OTHER INFORMATION INDICATES THAT A BMP HAS BEEN INAPPROPRIATELY, OR CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING INCORRECTLY MAINTAINED, THE PERMITTEE MUST ADDRESS THE NECESSARY REPLACEMENT OR MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO CORRECT THE BMP WITHIN 48 HOURS OF IDENTIFICATION. 4. PROVIDE SILT FENCE AND/OR OTHER CONTROL DEVICES, AS MAY BE REQUIRED, TO CONTROL SOIL EROSION DURING UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED, GRADED, AND STABILIZED V-SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL AND LAND PLANNING WITH GRASSING IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE UTILITY INSTALLATION. FILL, COVER, AND TEMPORARY SEEDING AT THE END OF EACH DAY ARE RECOMMENDED. IF WATER IS ENCOUNTERED WHILE TRENCHING, THE WATER SHOULD BE FILTERED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT BEFORE BEING PUMPED BACK INTO ANY WATERS OF THE STATE. POST INSTALLATION DETAIL FILTER FABRIC INSTALLATION DETAIL 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. ADDITIONAL CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO CONTROL EROSION AND/OR OFFSITE SEDIMENTATION. ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. PLAN SYMBOL 6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF MUD ONTO PAVED ROADWAY(S) FROM CONSTRUCTION AREAS AND THE GENERATION OF DUST. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DAILY REMOVE MUD/SOIL FROM PAVEMENT, AS MAY BE REQUIRED. 7. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE EROSION CONTROL FEATURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOT CONSTRUCTION. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL FOLLOW THESE PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN APPROVAL OF AN INDIVIDUAL PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C. REG. 72-300 ET SEQ. AND SCR100000. South Carolina Department of South Carolina Department of South Carolina Department of 8. TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERMS AND/OR DITCHES WILL BE PROVIDED AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO PROTECT WORK AREAS FROM UPSLOPE RUNOFF AND/OR TO DIVERT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER TO Health and Environmental Control Health and Environmental Control Health and Environmental Control APPROPRIATE TRAPS OR STABLE OUTLETS. Type A 9. ALL WATERS OF THE STATE (WOS), INCLUDING WETLANDS, ARE TO BE FLAGGED OR OTHERWISE CLEARLY MARKED IN THE FIELD. A DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE IS TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL AREAS WHERE A 50-FOOT BUFFER CAN'T BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE DISTURBED AREA AND ALL WOS. A 10-FOOT BUFFER SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE LAST ROW OF SILT FENCE AND ALL WOS. FILTER FABRIC BURIAL DETAIL STANDARD DRAWING NO. DATE 10. LITTER, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, OILS, FUELS, AND BUILDING PRODUCTS WITH SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT (SUCH AS STOCKPILES OF FRESHLY TREATED LUMBER) AND CONSTRUCTION CHEMICALS THAT COULD BE EXPOSED TO STORM WATER MUST BE PREVENTED FROM BECOMING A POLLUTANT SOURCE IN STORM WATER DISCHARGES. 11. A COPY OF THE SWPPP, INSPECTIONS RECORDS, AND RAINFALL DATA MUST BE RETAINED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OR A NEARBY LOCATION EASILY ACCESSIBLE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE DATE THAT FINAL STABILIZATION IS REACHED. 12. INITIATE STABILIZATION MEASURES ON ANY EXPOSED STEEP SLOPE (3H:1V OR GREATER) WHERE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES HAVE PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY CEASED, AND WILL NOT RESUME FOR A PERIOD OF 7 CALENDAR DAYS. AD EROSION CONTROL AND RO 13. MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND, UNLESS INFEASIBLE, PRESERVE TOPSOIL. I C BL PU 14. MINIMIZE THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS FROM EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE WASHING, WHEEL WASH WATER, AND OTHER WASH WATERS. WASH WATERS MUST BE TREATED IN A SEDIMENT BASIN OR ALTERNATIVE CONTROL THAT PROVIDES EQUIVALENT OR BETTER TREATMENT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE; 15. MINIMIZE THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS FROM DEWATERING OF TRENCHES AND EXCAVATED AREAS. THESE DISCHARGES ARE TO BE ROUTED THROUGH APPROPRIATE BMPs (SEDIMENT BASIN, FILTER BAG, ETC.). 16. THE FOLLOWING DISCHARGES FROM SITES ARE PROHIBITED: ● WASTEWATER FROM WASHOUT OF CONCRETE, UNLESS MANAGED BY AN APPROPRIATE CONTROL; ● WASTEWATER FROM WASHOUT AND CLEANOUT OF STUCCO, PAINT, FORM RELEASE OILS, CURING COMPOUNDS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS; ● FUELS, OILS, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS USED IN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE; AND SWPPP CONSTRUCTION ● SOAPS OR SOLVENTS USED IN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING. PLAN SYMBOL 17. AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BEGIN, INSPECTIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED AT A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST ONCE EVERY CALENDAR WEEK AND MUST BE CONDUCTED UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION IS REACHED ON ALL AREAS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 18. IF EXISTING BMPs NEED TO BE MODIFIED OR IF ADDITIONAL BMPs ARE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT AND/OR SC'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT WHENEVER PRACTICABLE. IF IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT IS IMPRACTICABLE, THE SITUATION MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE SWPPP AND SPECIFICATION SIZE ALTERNATIVE BMPs MUST BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. South Carolina Department of South Carolina Department of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Health and Environmental Control Health and Environmental Control 19. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE MUST BE HELD FOR EACH CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH AN ON-SITE SWPPP PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. FOR NON-LINEAR PROJECTS THAT Type A DISTURB 10 ACRES OR MORE THIS CONFERENCE MUST BE HELD ON-SITE UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT HAS TL OTHERWISE. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES: DETAILS DATE 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN BARRIERS AND SILT FENCES AROUND ALL DRAINAGE INLETS, OPEN PIPE INLETS, UNFINISHED JUNCTION BOXES, OR ANY OPENINGS THAT ALLOW STORM WATER BORNE SEDIMENTS TO ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR BE DISCHARGED FROM THE SITE. EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND/OR REPLACED AS NEEDED UNTIL ALL PERMANENT SURFACES (I.E. PAVEMENT, GRASS, PLANTING, ETC.) ARE IN PLACE. STRAW BALE BARRIER CONCRETE WASHOUT 2. SILT FENCE DAMS ON 100' INTERVALS ALONG ALL TEMPORARY DITCHES AND SWALES, 3. A CONCRETE TRUCK WASH DOWN LOCATION WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SITE FOR CONCRETE TRUCKS DELIVERING CONCRETE TO THE SITE TO PERFORM WASH DOWN AFTER DISCHARGING CONCRETE. WASH DOWN SHALL ALLOW EXCESS WATER TO DRAIN OFF THROUGH A FILTER SYSTEM, WHILE RETAINING FINES AND PASTE. SEE ALSO STANDARD SCDHEC SWPPP NOTES NO.14 & NO.16. ONCE THE EXCESS WATER HAS DRAINED AWAY, AND THE PASTE CURED TO A DRIED CONDITION, THE SUBSEQUENT HARDENED CONCRETE DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE COLLECTED AND REMOVED FROM THE OWNER'S PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND WASTE. THE CONCRETE WASTE MATERIAL WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE IN PILES ON-SITE. IF, AT ANY TIME, THE PROGRAM MANAGER DETERMINES THE WASH-DOWN AREA IS NOT BEING OPERATED OR MAINTAINED IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER, HE MAY DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR TO CEASE WASH-DOWN OPERATIONS ON THE SITE AND TO CLEAN THE AREA. 4. MAINTAIN ALL DEVICES FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL IN PROPER WORKING ORDER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. WHEN CONTROL DEVICES BECOME FILLED HALFWAY TO CAPACITY, REMOVE SEDIMENT AND DEPOSIT ONSITE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PRECLUDE FURTHER EROSION OF DEPOSITED SEDIMENT. CLEAN AND RESET DEVICE IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. 5. RESTORE PROTECTION TO PROTECTED STOCKPILES AND SLOPES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING DISTURBANCE. 6. REMOVE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS ONLY AFTER A FINAL INSPECTION AND AFTER PERMANENT PAVEMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AND NEW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT APPROVED. CONTRACTOR TO RETURN TO SITE TO REMOVE ALL SILT FENCING AND TREE PROTECTIONS ONCE GRASSING HAS BEEN STABILIZED. DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE OF SYNTHETIC TURF LIMITS SHALL BE FINE GRADED, TOP SOIL ADDED IF NECESSARY, AND SEEDED ALONG EMBANKMENTS. [CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY] PLAN SECTION B-B TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE, DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING FINAL SURFACE STABILIZATION OF ALL AREAS OF LAND DISTURBANCE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. THIS TYPE "ABOVE GRADE" WITH STRAW BALES INCLUDES PAVEMENTS, MULCHES, LANDSCAPING, AND GRASSING. ANY UNPAVED AREA DISTURBED NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THE TYPE OF VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION SHALL BE STABILIZED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT SURFACE OR TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL TYPE OF SURFACE; I.E. GRASS, MULCH, LANDSCAPE BED, ETC. NO DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE LEFT UNSTABILIZED. CONCRETE 155 DROZE ROAD WASHOUT South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control CONCRETE WASHOUT SIGN DETAIL CONCRETE WASHOUT TMS 136-00-00-093 TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREA GADSDEN A. LINTON III DATE OCTOBER 27, 2022 DRAWN/CHECKED CLH/TL LAST REVISED APPROVED South Carolina Department of TL Health and Environmental Control SCALE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE 1"=20' PROJECT NO. 5889-1 DATE SHEET NUMBER C501  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting Jan/9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/3/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Terry Kennedy (Stacks Tree Service) Owner: Katina Sanders Requested Action: Removal of 26” Pine (Pinus taeda) Location: 101 Towhee Dr 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. Applicant(s) Reason for Removal: Large Pine with slight lean towards house. Approximately 10’ from house at the base of the tree. Homeowner cites safety concerns. Staff Evaluation: Tree does present a phototropic lean and may have sustained damage to the root ball during the removal of an adjacent Water Oak. Tree otherwise appears healthy aside from a small wound at the base. Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Individual Tree Removal (Post-Occupancy, No Construction Activity) Note (1) Removal without mitigation is permitted if necessitated by emergencies, death, disease or damage not caused by the property owner as determined by staff.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting Jan/9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/3/24 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Heyward Preacher Owner: Heyward Preacher Requested Action: Removal of 5 Pines (Pinus taeda/pallustris) Location: 122 Caleb 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. Applicant(s) Reason for Removal: Safety concerns. Staff Evaluation: 1. DBH 16” Grade:C 2. DBH 10” Grade: D (Palustris) 3. DBH 14” Grade: C 4. DBH 16” Grade: C 5. DBH 12” Grade: D Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Individual Tree Removal (Post-Occupancy, No Construction Activity) Note (1) Removal without mitigation is permitted if necessitated by emergencies, death, disease or damage not caused by the property owner as determined by staff.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting Jan/9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/3/24 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Barenborg Chiropractic Owner: Kristen Barenborg Requested Action: Removal of Water Oak (Quercus nigra) Location: 209 W 6th N St 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. Applicant(s) Reason for Removal: Tree is dying and poses risk to existing home and garage. Would like to replace it with a Live Oak or other tree that will live longer. Staff Evaluation: Tree does appear to be aging out slowly and may have a cavity in large included bark crotch area. Over all the tree does not appear to pose a serious risk of failure. Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Individual Tree Removal (Post-Occupancy, No Construction Activity) Note (1) Removal without mitigation is permitted if necessitated by emergencies, death, disease or damage not caused by the property owner as determined by staff.  www.southernrootstreeservice.net Tree Protection Plan Date: 11-15-2022 Property Owner: Kristen Barenborg Property Address: 209 West 6th North St., Summerville, SC Contact Info: 843-875-3315 To Whom it may concern, On Tuesday November 15, 2022, Mrs. Kristen Barenborg contracted me to assess the current health of her approximate 30” DBH water oak, located in the middle of her backyard situated in front of the cottage; to determine whether the tree would be a good candidate to be saved in a responsible manner, or to be removed and replaced. Current health of this water oak is classified as “in decline”. Reasons are listed: 1. Central lead is dead and dying, signifying loss in central root system. 2. Mistletoe has infested the entire canopy (mistletoe is a parasitic plant that kills what it attaches to). 3. Outer canopy limb structure has taken over apical dominance (probably in response to central lead dying). 4. 5–10-year outlook for this type of limb structure will pose a severe risk of failure as the central lead continues dying back and weakening the rest of the limb structure. 5. Tree is a co-dominant structure with included bark which carries an inherent risk in the best of circumstances. In order to understand the entire impact to tree and owner, I wanted to outline the 10-year procedure that would be necessary to attempt to save this tree. 1. A tree save plan will include multiple pruning trips over a ten-year period *First, will be an elevation and removal of deadwood and mistletoe (which will likely require two trips) *Next, will be an additional trip within 3-5 years to prune the deadwood out again. *Third, trip within another 3-5 years for more deadwood removal and possible reduction prune to mitigate danger to main house and guest house, assuming the tree isn’t already dead. 2. Tree save plan will also include multiple fertilization treatments, 5-7 in a 10-year period. The financial responsibility to attempt a tree save plan will easily cost $7,500 in the first 10 years and still have the looming cost of removal. The environmental impact of this many trips defeats the purpose of saving a tree when success is not likely and ultimately the water oak in question will most likely be removed anyway. For all of these reasons I recommend removal of the water oak and replacement with a suitable oak species. As always, thank you for your time and consideration. Nathaniel Rice Southern Roots Tree Service ISA Certified Arborist SO-6405A 843-901-TREE (8733) SouthernRootsTreeSC@yahoo.com 803 S. Main St. | Summerville, SC 29483 | (843) 901-TREE(8733)  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting Jan/9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/3/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Brian Tuten Owner: Brian Tuten Requested Action: Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus spp.) & 1 Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Location: 302 Rutherford 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. Applicant(s) Reason for Removal: Removal of Magnolia is for construction of a garage. Pine removal was proposed by Arborist (Nathaniel Rice). Staff Evaluation: Mitigation Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Construction Activity/Site Development On interior suburban lots, the combined diameter breast height of the remaining trees must be greater than or equal to 160 inches per acre OR 20 trees per acre, whichever is greater. If this requirement is not met, mitigation is required at the same trees/acre ratio.