Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA February 6, 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 January 9, 2023 minutes Old Business 1. 420 Woodward Blvd- Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus spp.)(Arborist Letter) New Business 1. 604 W. Carolina Ave- Removal of 9 trees of assorted Genus. (Pinus, Betula, Prunus, Pyrus) 2. 114 Hutchinson- Removal of 1 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) and one River Birch (Betula nigra) 3. 4470 Ladson Rd- Removal of 2 Pines (Pinus taeda) Miscellaneous Adjournment Posted January 27, 2023  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, January 9th, 2023 Members Present: Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Danny Burbage Claude Burns David Morris Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Becca Zimmerman, Planner II Remy Clark, Planner I The meeting was called to order at 9:01 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the December 12th 2022 meeting minutes. Mr. Burbage motioned to approve. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Old Business: 1. 420 Woodward Blvd – Removal of 3 Pines (Pinus spp.) The property owner was present. Mr. Wilson began by describing the proximity concerns of the trees, adding that one had been struck by lightning. The property owner confirmed Mr. Wilson’s assessment, adding that one tree had a knot at the bottom and that her neighbor had requested its removal as well. Mr. Burbage stated that, from his recollection, tree 3 was the tree with a lightning strike and that it had enough decay to warrant removal. In regards to the tree with the knot, Mr. Burbage recommended finding an arborist to test the tree for decay and see if the root system was affected. He added that he could not see a need to remove the tree at the moment. Mr. Burns stated his agreement with Mr. Burbage’s assessment. The owner asked if she would have to wait to reapply if the arborist found decay. Mr. Wallace assured her that she could just apply for another permit and it could be reviewed again. Mr. Wallace added that the Board would need to  see something in writing from an arborist confirming structural damage to the tree. Mr. Burbage made a motion to approve tree 3 and reconsider tree 4 in the future with an appropriate report from a certified arborist. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passes 5-0. New Business: 1. 155 Droze Rd – Removal of 864 trees for townhouse development Jeff Roberts and Patrick Head from JJR Development, with additional staff, were present. Mr. Roberts began by stating appreciation to the Board for their input during the site visit. Mr. Roberts went on to explain that they had reworked their plan to incorporate requests from the Board. Mr. Head showed an exhibit which showed that 82 additional trees would be saved, as well as the intention to plant new trees to establish a lower canopy. The landscape architect/arborist for the project discussed the trees that were slated to be removed and to be saved in certain pockets of the site plan. It was explained that trees would be added for the benefit of the streetscape of the project. They assured the Board that, where able, lower canopy trees would be planted beneath remaining pines to add visual interest and parklike elements to the project. Mr. Burns asked how many trees would be canopy trees. The staff estimated about 159 canopy trees and 25 to 30 understory trees. Ms. Campbell recommended also planting azaleas, as they cohabitate well with pines. Mr. Burbage asked if there was a mitigation plan to restore soil compaction and also asked how the remaining 700 or so trees would be removed. Their staff arborist stated that the trees would likely be cut close to chest height so that an excavator could come and remove the stump. The arborist added that the excavator typically removes dirt as well, so fill dirt would be provided and would be tested to ensure it was appropriate for the site. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Head discussed the logistics of tree protections for the site to minimize root compaction. Mr. Head stated that an arborist would be on site to oversee the removal. Discussion continued. Mr. Burbage motioned to approve the project as submitted with the stipulation that a mitigation be submitted to the Town’s Arborist for approval. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 2. 101 Towhee Dr – Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) DBH 26” No representative was present. Mr. Wilson explained that the tree was a large, seemingly healthy pine that had some proximity concerns and slight damage to the base of the home. Mr. Wilson stated that a water oak had recently been removed within the root zone of the pine which could potentially have affected the roots. Mr. Wallace stated that the tree was just under ten feet from the wall of the house. Ms. Campbell asked to clarify that  the primary concern was the tree’s proximity to the home. Mr. Wilson confirmed, adding that the tree also showed signs of mechanical damage. Ms. Campbell mentioned root pruning and preventative maintenance as potential solutions. Mr. Burbage stated that he could not find any reason to remove the tree, as it did not seem to be endangering the home. Mr. Morris agreed, stating that it appeared to be a healthy tree. Ms. Campbell made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 3. 122 Caleb Ct – Removal of 5 Pines (Pinus taeda/palustris) The property owner, Mr. Preacher, was present. Mr. Preacher explained that his initial application was prompted by a tree that fell in his yard during Hurricane Ian. He explained that he was concerned that the trees could cause damage in future storms, particularly tree number 3 which had a slight lean towards his home. Mr. Burns asked if the tree that fell snapped off or uprooted. Mr. Preacher stated that the tree snapped about 12 feet above ground level. Mr. Burns asked if the tree had any previous issues or damage. Mr. Preacher explained that it seemed to be a very healthy tree. Mr. Morris stated that he did see some decay on the fallen tree during the site visit. Mr. Burns explained that the Board looks for trees that are dead, diseased, dying, or a safety issue. He added that the trees on the property seemed to be in good shape and that he could not see a reason to remove them at this time. Mr. Burns stated that he would continue to monitor the trees, but trees 1 and 5 could use some discussion. Mr. Preacher stated that there was a codependency at the top of tree 1 and that tree 5 had low hanging, dead limbs. Mr. Wallace stated that the tree closest to the house was the finest tree on the property, adding that its taper implied strength and resistance to stress. Mr. Wallace stated that it was a healthy tree and that it was difficult to justify removal on the basis of potential harm. Mr. Burbage agreed, adding that trees 1 and 5 could be removed because of structural faults, but that tree 3 should remain. Discussion ensued pertaining to mitigation requirements on the property. Ms. Zimmerman explained that the owners would still meet their caliper inch requirement should the trees be removed. Mr. Wallace motioned to approve removal of trees 1 and 5 and to waive the requirement for mitigation. Mt. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 4. 209 W 6th North St – Removal of 1 Water Oak (Quercas nigra) DBH 35” The property owner and arborist Nathaniel Rice were present. Mr. Wallace stated that they had received the letter from Mr. Rice describing the case for removal. Mr. Burbage asked if there was any reinforcing information that was not included in the letter that Mr. Rice would like to share. Mr. Rice stated that the letter covered everything. Mr. Burbage discussed a portion of Mr. Rice’s letter which outline a tree care plan involving pruning every 3 to 5 years. He added that he would rather see that than removal. Mr. Rice stated that there may be a misunderstanding. Mr. Rice explained that while they could put that work into the tree, it would ultimately still be in decline. Mr. Burbage stated that he would rather save the tree than remove it. Mr. Burbage explained that a tree being in  decline is not necessarily a reason to remove it, in his opinion. Mr. Burbage stated that the central leader could be pruned, mistletoe could be removed, and the tree could be fertilized which could buy the tree at least 10 more years of life. Mr. Rice stated that such a process would ultimately be a net-negative for the environment with all of the work and resources that would be going towards preserving a declining tree. Mr. Rice added that his footprint would be too heavy to try and save the tree and that it would likely fail before then anyways. Mr. Burbage stated that he understood the recommendation, but that maintenance was still the best alternative. Mr. Burbage explained that if nothing was done and there was no footprint at all, the tree would likely be fine for another 10 years. Mr. Burbage added that a study of the trunk and decay of the tree that showed a definite risk would be necessary for reconsideration. Mr. Rice and Mr. Burbage discussed the most appropriate way to manage such a study. Mr. Wallace stated his desire for further information before making a final decision. Mr. Burbage recommended doing resistance testing to confirm how much structure remained in the root system. Mr. Rice stated that he did not feel that such a practice could be applied in this circumstance. Mr. Burbage and Mr. Burns assured him that it could. Mr. Burbage moved to deny the application. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 5. 302 Rutherford St – Removal of 1 Pine (Pinus spp.) and 1 Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) The property owners, the Tutens, were present. Mr. Wallace explained that the application was for a grand tree removal for the construction of a garage. Mr. Tuten explained that the pine tree was not the major concern. Mr. Burns explained that mitigation for the magnolia had been discussed at the site visit. Discussion regarding mitigation continued. The Tutens stated their approval of the mitigation plan, adding that they had a suitable location and would be happy to plant additional trees. Mr. Wallace mentioned the idea of mitigation with canopy trees, which the Tutens approved of. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would confirm mitigation requirements had been met before issuing the CO for the garage. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the mitigation requirement would be 40 caliper inches at minimum for the lot, adding that she could come out and assess the lot. Mr. Burbage asked if the Board could specify two canopy trees and then, if after calculations there were room for one more, alter the decision at a later date. Ms. Zimmerman explained that if the owners meet the 40 caliper inch minimum after removal, the Board cannot require any mitigation but can pass the motion with a recommendation. Mr. Burbage made a motion to approve removal of the magnolia tree with appropriate mitigation and the recommendation of 2 canopy trees. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Other Business – NONE Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:23 am on a motion by Mr. Burns and a second by Ms. Campbell. 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 January 9, 7, 2022 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Bill Salisbury, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: October January11, 2022 3, 2023 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Nick Powell Owner: Nick Powell Requested Action: Removal of four Pine tree 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 February/6/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/24/2023 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Jessica Smith Owner: Jessica Smith Requested Action: Removal of 2 trees Location: 114 Hutchinson Ln 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: Homeowner hopes to bring more sunlight into the yard. Cites house mold as a concern. Staff Evaluation: 1 River Birch (Betula nigra), Grade B. Tree is healthy and shows no obvious signs of decline. Slightly crowded by fence and neighboring shrubs. 1 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Grade B. Tree has very minor codominance. Otherwise appears to be in great health. 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 February/6/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/24/2023 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Jerry and Kathleen Bishop Owner: Jerry and Kathleen Bishop Requested Action: Removal of 9 trees Location: 604 W. Carolina Ave 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: Limb and debris drop. Large Birch has caused damage to vehicle. Staff Evaluation: * 1 River Birch (Betula nigra) 22”/22” DBH, Grade C. Some signs of decline present. Limb drop has caused damage to vehicles. * 3 Bradford Pears (Pyrus calleriana) Invasive species. Removal encouraged. * 1 Water Oak (Quercus nigra) 10” DBH, Grade B, Dropping debris into pool. * 3 Sweet Gums (Liquidambar styraciflua) 20”,20”,10” DBH’s. All in good health. Gumball drop cited as reason for removal. * 1 Cherry (Prunus serotina?) Tree is under 8” DBH. No permit needed. * 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) 10” DBH. Grade A. Healthy young tree. 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 February/6/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 1/24/2023 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Michael McCormick, PE (engineer for development) Owner: Michael McCormick, PE (engineer for development) Requested Action: Removal of two Pinus taeda Location: 4470 Ladson 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 2 Pines for purposes of building proposed Express Oil Change Staff Evaluation: Pines are healthy but within the footprint of project. 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.