Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA May 8, 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 April 10, 2023 minutes Old Business 1. 101 Plantation Drive- Removal of 4 trees (various spp.) for construction of fence. New Business 1. 103 Eagle Court- Removal of 1 Live Oak 2. 108 Sawtry Place- Removal of 7 trees (Various spp.) 3. 115 Manigault Drive- TPZ Encroachment (49” DBH Live Oak) 4. 307 East 1st North Street- Removal 1 Live Oak Miscellaneous Adjournment Posted May 3, 2023  Tree Protection Board – April 10th, 2023 Board Members Present: Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Danny Burbage Claude Burns Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Remy Clark, Planner I Becca Zimmerman, Planner II Approval of Minutes: The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the March 6th, 2023 minutes. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Burns seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Old Business: 1. 19 Legare Ln – Removal of 17 / protection of 15 trees for residential construction Mr. Joey Herring, the owner of the property, and Mr. Matt Halter were present. Mr. Halter began by stating that the property in question was a beautiful lot with a lot of trees, however, he added that some were in better shape than others and that many did not warrant saving. Mr. Halter explained that the primary issue seemed to be the two 30” oak trees located where the proposed garage would be situated. Mr. Halter stated that they had tried to move the house in every way possible, altered the driveway, and minimized the footprint in order to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Burns asked if the current site plan considered the possibility of underground utilities. Mr. Halter explained that they will indeed be doing underground utilities for the home. Mr. Wallace commented that the initial list of trees to be saved/preserved was saving inferior trees and tearing down nicer trees, giving the impression that the site plan was set in stone  from the beginning and not created in such a way as to accommodate the concerns of the Tree Protection Board. Mr. Wallace added that the two large live oaks were not the only concerns. Mr. Halter stated that, while the plan was now hopefully set in stone, many revisions were undergone to revise the footprint of the structure to save trees. Mr. Halter added that many of the bigger trees on the property were located right in the middle of the lot. Discussion regarding the site plan continued. Mr. Halter went on to explain that Natural Directions Tree Company had been enlisted to develop a strategy that would ensure the health of all remaining trees on the property. Mr. Burns asked about the possibility of planting additional trees on the property. Mr. Halter stated that they could absolutely do some planting. Mr. Wallace stated that planting would be at the applicant’s discretion, though 2.5” to 3” caliper canopy or understory trees were preferred. Mr. Halter stated that if mitigation were required to make the plan work, he would be happy to comply. Mr. Herring explained that the large footprint of the home was intended to accommodate extended family and that his family intended to do all they could to beautify the property for the betterment of the community. Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Herring if he considered housing his RV in a separate location rather than on the lot. Mr. Herring stated that he had considered it, but was discouraged by monthly fees and the potential of catalytic converter theft. He added that the RV was good for guests. Discussion was had regarding the footprint of the proposed work shed. Mr. Burbage asked if the shed would have plumbing. Mr. Herring confirmed that it would have electricity, but not plumbing. Mr. Burbage stated that he had reservations as a resident of the neighborhood, adding that it seemed to be a large house for the area. Mr. Burbage stated that it was not very organic to that area of Summerville. Mr. Wallace stated his agreement. Mr. Burbage stated that, while he did not particularly care for the site plan, if the applicant felt he was doing what was right for his family and the town, he would support the application so long as recommendations from Natural Directions were implemented. Mr. Wallace motioned to approve the application contingent upon underground utilities and mitigation in the sense of beautification in any place Natural Directions determines as beneficial. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. New Business: 1. 101 Plantation Dr – Removal of 2 sweetgums, 1 red oak, and 1 other tree No representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that the owner was still awaiting HOA approval to move a fence and boat parking area and that it was determined at the site visit that the item would need to be deferred. Mr. Burns stated that the ironwood tree had some structural issues and would be fine to remove, but that he was not sure how it would affect the adjacent tree. Mr. Wallace stated that there was no way the Board could approve anything currently so he felt that deferral was the best option. Mr.  Burbage motioned to defer to the May 8th meeting. Mr. Burns seconded. The motion passed 4-0. 2. 114 Spring Meadows Dr – Removal of 1 hickory No representative was present. Mr. Burbage stated that the tree had a concerning hollow at the base that seemed to go up the trunk about 18 to 24 inches. Mr. Burbage added that the lack of structural integrity of the roots on the backside of the tree was of great concern and that the tree seemed to be decaying significantly. Mr. Burbage stated that he would be in favor of the removal of the tree considering its significant state of decay. Ms. Campbell expressed that it was a shame to see the tree removed considering it was the only tree on the property. Mr. Burbage added that the upside was the large wooded area immediately behind the property. Mr. Burns added that there was plenty of room to replant as well. Mr. Burns moved to approve the removal of the tree with a strong recommendation to replant trees at the rear of the property. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 3. 506 Woodward Blvd – Removal of 1 pine The applicant did not pay the Tree Protection Board fee on time, so the item was not reviewed. 4. 118 Hartley Hall Ct – Removal of 1 red oak and 1 white oak No representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that he could find no issue with the trees, describing them as remarkably healthy. Mr. Burbage stated that the white oak had possible decay, but that he would recommend having a certified arborist inspect the tree to confirm. Mr. Burbage added that there seemed to be nothing wrong with the red oak, though the owner may want to consider root pruning if the root system was disrupting the sidewalk enough to warrant it. Mr. Wallace explained that Mr. Wilson recommended the removal of two water oaks on the property. Mr. Wallace stated that the owner did not seem concerned with the water oaks, but that the Board should make a point of recommending their removal in whatever motion was put forth. Mr. Burns stated that both the red oak and the white oak looked find, reiterating that a certified arborist would need to confirm any structural issues. Mr. Burns made a motion to deny the removal of both trees. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Wallace put forth an amendment to the motion to include a strong recommendation to remove both the water oaks. Mr. Burns put forth an amendment to the motion to recommend having a certified arborist inspect the tops of both trees applied for as well as the roots of the red  oak. Mr. Burbage seconded the amendments. The amendments passed 4-0. The motion passed 4-0. Other Business – NONE Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 am on a motion by Mr. Burbage and a second by Mr. Burns. 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 April 10, 2023 5/8/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 4/3/2023 5/2/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Ashton Tanner Landscaping Service Owner: Cameron & Jena Ferguson Requested Action: Removal of 2 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 1 Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and 1 Musclewood? (Carpinus caroliniana) Location: 101 Plantation 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: Danger to house & fence Staff Evaluation: 1 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) DBH: 16" Healthy, loaded slightly towards house, not likely hazardous. 1 Red Oak (Quercus rubra) DBH: 13" Healthy, loaded slightly towards yard. Not likely hazardous. 1 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) DBH: 14" Healthy, conjoined with musclewood? Good taper, healthy branching. 1 Musclewood? (Carpinus caroliniana) DBH: 11" Decay present at base, likely hollow, however seems to have healthy canopy. Mitigation Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Individual Tree Removal (Post-Occupancy, No Construction Activity) Grand Trees (16 inches or greater) must be mitigated by planting trees with a minimum combined diameter at breast height equal to 100% of the tree(s) removed. Protected Trees (8 inches or greater) must be mitigated by planting trees with a minimum combined diameter at breast height equal to 50% of the tree(s) removed.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting May 8/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 5/1/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Planet Green Landscaping LLC- Richard Coker Owner: Shane/Helen Graham Requested Action: 29”/27” Quercus virgiana removal Location: 103 Eagle 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: “Oak tree is broken in half and limbs are falling and dangerous.” Staff Evaluation: Tree has a strong phototropic lean on one side of it's codominant leader (very common for species and not inherently unsound). Some included bark as well. This has caused the tree to slowly damage the swing beneath it as it grows out toward the swing. Otherwise the tree appears to be in very good health with no obvious signs of decay. 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 May 8/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 5/1/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Lauren Lawter Owner: Lauren Lawter Requested Action: Removal of 7 trees of varied spp. Location: 108 Sawtry Pl 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: Proximity & Root concerns. Staff Evaluation: Front yard: 2 White Oaks (Quercus alba) DBH: 14"/14". No visible defects. Located close to water meter. 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) DBH: 18", Very minor seam located at base. Fully compartmentalized. Past pruning cuts compartmentalizing well. Located near water meter. No visible decay. Backyard (from right to left): 1 Longleaf Pine (Pinus pallustrus) DBH: 18". Tree seems to be weeping quite a bit on the backside of the trunk. Cause unknown. A slight bulge towards the base sounds solid and has compartmentalized completely. Homeowner has buried the roots with yard debris which could potentially have adverse effects over time. Otherwise appears to be in good health. Pine 2 (Pinus taeda) DBH: 17": Fairly significant wound on backside of trunk. Seems to be compartmentalizing well. Tree sounds solid. Small fruiting body at the base. Does not appear to be any type of rot indicator. Superficial. Pine 3 (Pinus taeda) DBH 18": Slightly bulging root flare. Likely caused by overmulching. Otherwise appears healthy. Pine 4 (Pinus taeda) DBH 16". Located 4' from shed. Slight phototropic lean. No other obvious defects. 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 5/8/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 5/1/2023 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Paradise Pools & Spas- Will Nelson Owner: Ashley Stephenson Requested Action: Pool installation/ Tree Protection Encroachment Location: 115 Manigault 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 Encroachment: Installation of 12x24 inground pool. Encroachment of TPZ for 49” Live Oak w/Arborist letter. Staff Evaluation: The Oak in question is fully matured and may not handle root zone disturbances as well as a younger tree. 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. Larson 55' 10' 9' 10' Setback Overdig 3' 3' 3' 14' 6" Overdig Overdig 12x24 23' 6 10' Setback 3' 8' 6" " 2' Overdig Overdig Tree Protection 24' 2' 6" 15' 10' Setback Overdig 7 Yards 10' 560 SF 0' 17' 10' Setback 10' Impervious Surface: House 2036 SF Porch 438 SF Garage 779 SF Driveway 1282 SF Porch Walk/Park 463 SF Pool Deck 600 SF Total 5598/20576=27.2% Scale: 1/30" = 1 ft  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting May 8/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 5/1/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Fulton’s Tree Service LLC (Kenneth Fulton) Owner: Marcqus K Moore Requested Action: 24” Quercus virginiana removal Location: 307 E 1st 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: Cracking driveway/ Service lines overhead Staff Evaluation: Healthy 24” Live Oak. Can confirm driveway issues. 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.