Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA September 12, 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 August 7, 2023 minutes Old Business New Business 1. 2025 Shoal Creek Ct. – Removal of 2 Pines 2. 106 Kapalua Run - Removal of 3 Pines 3. 100 N. Hampton St. – Removal of 7 Pines 4. 410 Thomaston Ave. – Removal of 1 Sweetgum 5. 121 Blake Dr.- Removal of 1 Hickory and 1 Oak 6. 116 E. Walker Dr. - Removal of 19 Pines and 3 Magnolias 7. 516 Central Ave. - Removal of Laurel Oak 8. 105 Towering Pine Dr. – Removal of 6 Pines 9. 105 Long Needle Ln. – Removal of triple-trunked Oak 10. 115 Pressley Ave. – Removal of 1 Oak, 1 Pecan, and 2 Hackberries 11. 101 Dana Ct. – Removal of 1 Maple and 1 Sweetgum 12. Crestview MHP – Removal of 2 Oaks 13. Crosscreek Dr. – Removal of trees for construction of mixed-use development Miscellaneous Adjournment Posted September 1, 2023  Tree Protection Board – August 7th, 2023 Board Members Present: Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Danny Burbage Claude Burns David Morris Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Remy Clark, Planner I Approval of Minutes: The meeting was called to order at 9:01 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the July 10th, 2023 minutes. Mr. Wallace asked that a correction be made in reference to the agenda item for Sasportas Ln. Mr. Wallace asked to clarify that his reference to the proximity concerns of the tree being encroached on were due to its proximity to the ditch on the property. Following this amendment, Mr. Burbage motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Old Business: NONE New Business: 1. 114 Mendenhall Rd – Removal/Encroachment of 20” Live Oak Mr. Wallace stated that the item would be delayed due to a pending variance request that would affect the proposed garage and driveway. Mr. Wallace made a motion to defer the item until further notice. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 2. 117B Central Ave – Removal of 1 Water Oak and 1 Pecan This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. 3. 209 W 6th North St – Encroachment of TPZ for Water Oak and Live Oak Representatives were present. Mr. Wallace asked if there was anymore discussion to be had following the site visit. A representative stated that there was a tree protection plan in place to get around the necessary trees to access the backyard and remove the tree there. Mr. Burbage stated that he was pleased with the plan, but suggested plywood be laid down with two to three layers of mulch on top to help mitigate soil compaction. The representative stated that they would do it, but that they were concerned with the moisture that could come from the mulch. Mr. Burns asked how many inches of mulch they planned to put on top of the plywood. The representative stated that it would be three to four inches and that he would monitor mulch application during his inspections. Mr. Burbage motioned to approve the item. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 4. 100 Whitehall Rd – Removal of 35” Willow Oak A representative was present. The representative explained that the willow oak needed to be removed for a building addition. He added that the tree’s roots were lifting concrete and its limbs were falling on the primary residence of the lot. Mr. Wallace stated that the submitted drawing did not make it clear whether the tree was in the way of the addition’s footprint. The representative confirmed that it would be. The Board expressed concerns that the tree was not shown on the site plan. The representative explained that the tree was shown as a circle near the steps of the existing footprint on the plan. He explained that the tree is about 12 feet from the house and that the addition would be jutting out about 16 feet. Mr. Wallace stated that the drawing indicated that it would be outside of the footprint and that this new information changed the Board’s mindset about the project. There was discussion regarding the inaccuracies of the site plan. Mr. Burbage stated that the tree was structurally fine and that he was troubled by the misleading drawing, as his original thoughts were based on false information. Mr. Wilson stated that the tree had some hollowing and oak boring beetle population, raising some questions about its longevity. Mr. Burbage stated that research would indicate that those are not immediate threats. Mr. Wallace asked if the applicant would be okay with mitigation. The representative stated they would be. Mr. Wallace moved to approve the plan with a recommendation for mitigation. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 5. 800 S Main St – Removal of 19” Pine. TPZ for other trees on site Mr. Wilson asked the representative if he supplied an official tree survey. The representative stated that he did not have time to get a professional survey done and that he only had a survey he had drawn. He expressed his concern with getting deferred and losing 30 days on his project. Mr. Wilson explained that the Planning Department wanted to see an official tree survey and that he was advised not to review the item until an official tree survey was submitted. Mr. Wallace asked if there were any way to review the plan. Mr. Wilson said that there likely was not and that it should be deferred until a survey is submitted. Mr. Burbage stated that the situation was unfortunate, but that the Town has regulations it must follow and that deferral was necessary. The representative asked if the plan could be reviewed based on his site plan assuming an official site plan was later submitted that confirmed his measurements. Mr. Wilson stated that this could be considered as a condition of approval should the Board opt to review it. The Board discussed the location of the trees on the lot on their proximity to construction. The representative provided his site plan and tree survey to the Board. Mr. Wallace motioned to approve the removal of the trees and the tree protection plan contingent on the fact that an official tree survey be completed prior to the release of the permit. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 6. 105 E Carolina – Removal of 2 Pines (28” and 17”) A representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that the biggest issue with the application was that there was no drawing provided for the proposed mother-in-law suite. Mr. Wallace added that the Board needs a footprint in order to make an informed decision and that the proposed location seems to infringe on the neighboring property’s trees. The representative stated that the 2 pines being considered needed to be removed for health concerns regardless. Mr. Wallace stated that one tree looked questionable, but the other did not seem to have any substantial structural issues. Mr. Wallace added that, while the tree was not significant, it was the Board’s duty look out for it. Mr. Wallace reiterated his concerns about the proximity of the project to the property line. The representative explained that he had two arborists assess the trees and that they agreed on the fact that one was lightning struck and the other was loaded towards one side. The representative stated that these health concerns outweighed the need for a site plan. Mr. Wallace stated his disagreement that the leaning tree was in bad shape and that its condition was dependent upon future growth. Mr. Wallace once again reiterated his concerns about the project’s proximity to the neighbor’s property. Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Wilson for clarification about the site plan. Mr. Wilson stated he would need to see it. The representative stated that he would submit a site plan. The representative stated that he could move the project to get away from the leaning tree  and could just remove the lightning struck tree. There was discussion regarding the location of the project, the property setbacks, and the removal of a shed on the property. Mr. Wilson stated that he would feel better about the application if there were a site plan he could see. Mr. Morris echoed his concern. The representative asked if he could remove the lightning struck tree and work around the remaining tree. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the removal of the large lightning struck pine under the condition that the Town first review an appropriate site plan and tree protection zones prior to any construction. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 7. 110 Sasportas – Removal of Live Oak A representative was present. The representative explained that there were several trees being considered. The lot is for a new residential construction. The representative stated that the initial footprint was larger and that it was minimized to preserve trees. The representative explained that the only tree they were now applying to remove was one 30” oak, but that there would be encroachment into the TPZ of a 44” oak on the lot. The representative provided an arborist letter regarding the tree protection plan for the encroachment. Mr. Burns asked how much encroachment there would be and asked about existing cuts on the tree. The representative stated that the footprint would be 15 feet from the tree but that the protection area was around 40 feet. The representative added that the cuts were already on the tree and that he was unsure of how they got there. The Board discussed the encroachment of the 44” oak as well as the arborist letter. Mr. Burbage stated that it was a good letter from a certified arborist. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the application contingent upon the Town Arborist putting together a mitigation plan for the tree protection zone of the 44” oak. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Other Business: Ms. Campbell expressed concerns about including so many contingencies on Board decisions. She stated that it was irresponsible of applicants to come to Tree Protection Board before doing their due diligence and then ask the Board for concessions. Mr. Wallace echoed Ms. Campbell’s concerns, adding that he did not feel comfortable approving items without plans and that the Board would need more concrete information going forward. The Board expressed particular concern with the item for 105 E Carolina due to the minimal information provided by the applicant. Mr. Burbage stated that there are rules for a reason and that it is incumbent upon applicants to make an attempt to follow those rules appropriately. Mr. Burns stated that it was bad precedent to allow approvals without having all the necessary documentation. The Board requested that more information be required before items are reviewed. The Board also requested that there be time allotted during site visits to discuss agenda items more thoroughly and to gain a better understanding of where they stand in the Town’s processes. Mr. Clark and Mr. Wilson agreed that staff would address these concerns. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 am on a motion by Mr. Burbage and a second by Mr. Morris. 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Darlene Searfoss Owner: Darlene Searfoss Requested Action: Removal of two Pines Location: 2025 Shoal Creek 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: Trees are distressed and need to be removed. Trees are dropping limbs and there are holes in the bark. Homeowner is concerned about costs incured due to presence of tree roots for driveway and sewage system damage. Staff Evaluation: Pine 1 (Pinus taeda) 32" DBH: Closest to road. Tree has phototropic lean and uneven branching with some dieback within the canopy. Strong central lead with good LCR apart from singular loading. Leans toward cul-de-sac with fairly low occupancy rate. Good taper shows strong response to loading and wind events. Good surrounding buffer. No termites found at base. Slight imperfection at root collar is fully compartmentalized. Trimming recommended to help with natural limb drop. Pine 2 (Pinus taeda) 26" DBH: Behind Pine 1. No termites detected. Sounds solid. Small compartmentalized scar approximately 30' feet up the trunk (Lightning strike?), some weeping. Branches loaded to one side however tree has good taper and good LCR. Minimal canopy dieback. Overall appears healthy. Inspection of scar/resistograph testing recommended by third party arborist. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Adam Soffera Owner: Adam Soffera Requested Action: Removal of 3 Pine Trees for construction of pergola Location: 106 Kapalua Run 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: Pine trees are within 10 feet of a pergola Staff Evaluation: Pine 1 (Pinus taeda) 25" DBH: Healthy, strong taper, balanced crown. No obvious defects. Pine 2 (Pinus taeda) 13" DBH: Unbalanced crown, codominant, Healthy, good taper. Pine 3 (Pinus taeda) 17" DBH: Large wound at fulcrum, unbalanced crown, excessive weeping. Lightning strike? Approved at staff level. Marked with tape by arborist. 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.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Thomas Limehouse Owner: Thomas Limehouse Requested Action: Removal of 7 Pines (Pinus taeda) Location: 100 N. Hampton 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: Trees causing damage to adjoining properties and buildings Staff Evaluation: 7 Pines (Pinus taeda): Each of the pines are similar in condition and structure and as such will be assessed as a whole: All appear healthy with no major structural defects. Most are conjoined. Loaded towards adjacent structure and causing damage to wooden fence. Good wind buffer from surrounding trees. Good taper and LCR aside from uneven canopy distribution. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Rogers Hauling & Tree Services – Clay Rogers Owner: Kristin Perkins Requested Action: Removal of 1 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Location: 410 Thomaston 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: Tree Drops limbs out between both houses Staff Evaluation: 1 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). 25" DBH. Top has been blown out in a wind event though a new dominant lead has emerged. Often these new leads are mature epicormic growth resulting in a weaker union. Aside from this, the tree appears to be in good health. Recommend crown cleaning to mitigate limb drop rather than removal. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Davis Tree Co.- Roger Davis Owner: Roxanne Manson Requested Action: Removal of 14” Hickory (Carya spp.) & 18” Pin (Water?) Oak (Quercus spp) Location: 121 Blake 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: 14" dbh hickory- roots cracking driveway and lift brick around flower beds, dropping limbs; 18" dbh pin oak-open cavities, root system cracking sidewalk, approaching on water line Staff Evaluation: 1 Hickory (Carya spp.) DBH: 16.5: Tree is cracking driveway and large Hickory nuts are dropping and damaging vehicles beneath it. It is close enough to the driveway that root pruning does not seem to be a viable option; however, the tree is exceptionally healthy and the homeowner is not interested in planting mitigation. 1 Pin (Water?) Oak (Quercus spp) DBH 18": Extensive canopy dieback, fruiting bodies present within hollows, road/ sidewalk within dropzone. Presents hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. Mitigation Requirementsif 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Mark Hammond Owner: Mark Hammond Requested Action: Removal of 19 Pine, 3 Magnolia trees Location: 116 E. Walker 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: Damaging home with falling tree limbs, sap, and preventing grass to grow Staff Evaluation: Trees reviewed and numbered (on tape) starting at the left corner (Front yard) of the house moving in a counterclockwise direction. Pine 1: 24" DBH, no obvious defects. Good taper. Pine 2: 19" DBH, Low LCR, vine encumbered, good taper, healthy. Pine 3: 20" DBH, Vines, good LCR, Healthy. Pine 4: 29" DBH, Vines, Healthy. Pine 5: 25" DBH, Healthy, some irregular growth. Pine 6: 25" DBH, Large lightning strike. Uncompartmentalized wounds "catface" presents reasonable degree of hazard. Recommend approval. Magnolia 1 (#7): 18"/12" DBH, Multistemmed, good union between codoms (no inclusion), No obvious defects. Pine 7 (#8): 26" DBH, some superficial woodpecker damage, loaded towards home, appears healthy. Pine 8 (#9): 24" DBH, Healthy. Pine 9 (#10): 22" DBH, irregular growth, good taper, healthy. Pine 10 (#11): 17" DBH, Very good LCR, young, Healthy, vigorous. DRIVEWAY STARTING FROM ROAD Pine 11 (#12): 19" DBH, Adjacent to driveway, Healthy, good taper, Large root lining driveway, some roots crossing driveway (gravel). Pine 12 (#13): 23" DBH, some irregular growth (epicormic spouts), Healthy. BACKYARD BEGINNING AT RIGHT CORNER Pine 13 (#14): 24" DBH, located 12' from home, Pinus pallustrus, some weeping, appears healthy. Pine 14 (#15): Slick bark, fully mature, Adjacent to neighbors fence, canopy looks a little sparse, otherwise healthy. Magnolia 2 (#16) 20" DBH, Healthy, vigorous. Pine 15 (#17) 21" DBH, Large seam on backside, appears compartmentalized, may still affect structural integrity, Large seam on Front side as well. Slick bark. Seams likely due to past wind events possibly lightning though no other signs of damage. Pine 16 (#18): 18" DBH, Pinus pallustrus, severe cavity at base. Recommend approval. Pine 17 (#19): 24" DBH, Large, fully mature, slick bark, some irregular growth. Healthy. Magnolia 3 (#20) 18" DBH, Healthy. Pine 18 (#21): 18" DBH, located 3' from shed, 18' from house, Healthy. Pine 19 (#22): 25" DBH, Vine encumbered, 18' from house, Healthy. Trees not marked, homeowner unclear on exactly which trees are being applied for. Mentioned trees closest to home as priority. Cites limb drop and grass growth as major concerns. Limbs have damaged home on multiple occasions. Recommend level 3 assessment by third party Arborist for any priority tree removals on site. For work of this magnitude, a letter of recommended action with full TRAQ assessment can go a long way in TPB review process. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Charleston Tree Experts – Sherry Silva Owner: Brian Protheroe Requested Action: Removal of 33” Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) Location: 516 Central 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: Diseased, imminent hazard Staff Evaluation: 33" DBH laurel oak. Covered in ivy, some fungus at base of tree, potentially some cavities in trunk Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Jose Laporte Owner: Jose Laporte Requested Action: Removal of six Pines (Pinus taeda) Location: 105 Towering Pine 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: Trees loaded towards house and towards neighboring properties. All trees located in backyard. Staff Evaluation: 6 Pines (Pinus taeda). Backyard is heavily wooded, some removals with mitigation in other locations on the lot may be beneficial to overall canopy. However, all of the trees applied for are healthy and young with only minor imperfections thus, cannot be approved at a staff level. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Complete Tree Service – William Platt Owner: Debra Baxter Requested Action: Removal of 1 triple-trunked Oak Location: 105 Long Needle 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: dropping deadwood , limbs; customer of afraid of damaging house and neighbors fence and house Staff Evaluation: Triple-trunk oak - 13", 16", 19", appears to be healthy; did not notice any rot at junction of trunks, but union could be weak spot. Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Denise Wooldridge Owner: Denise Wooldridge Requested Action: Removal of 1 Pecan, 1 Oak, and 2 Hackberry Location: 115 Pressley 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: Trees need to be removed to properly install a new fence. Current fence was in major disrepair, falling down and damaged from a dead tree that fell during a recent storm. Fence has been taken down due to unsightliness and potential hazard. Staff Evaluation: 24" Oak at corner, appears relatively healthy 15" Hackberry in poor health 14" Hackberry in poor health 21" Pecan at back corner, appears relatively healthy, but does have a significant lean toward the house. All are in conflict with previous location for privacy fence. It does appear that the fence could be placed below the line of trees, but owner stated that water tends to pool there when it rains, and she is afraid the fence would rot quickly if frequently subjected to standing water. 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.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Fulton’s Tree Service – Kenneth Fulton Owner: James Edwards Requested Action: Removal of 1 Maple and 1 Sweetgum Location: 101 Dana 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: Maple has trunk rot and the sweet gum has codominant liter with included bark. Staff Evaluation: 30" Sweet Gum - appears healthy; codominant leader is too high up to adequately assess from ground level) 26" Maple - significant rot in the trunk, recommend approval Mitigation 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 September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: JJR Development Owner: JJR Development Requested Action: Removal of 159 grand trees for construction of apartments & commercial building Location: Crosscreek 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: The site is to be developed for a new Mixed-use development consisting of apartments and commercial. Great efforts have been made to preserve as many existing trees as possible in the proposed site plan. Of the 622 trees on site, 196 trees are being saved and 68 of 227 grand trees are being saved. Great effort and respect has been employed in this application. We have included the tree survey and demo plan, the site plan, the arborist report and a diagram highlighting trees to save. Staff Evaluation: It does appear that an effort was made to save grand oaks in good condition; however, a large number of grand trees still require removal. Due to this large number of grand trees, this decision requires TPB approval. Mitigation Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Construction Activity/Site Development On interior urban lots, the combined diameter breast height of the remaining trees must be greater than or equal to 60 inches per acre OR 10 trees per acre, whichever is greater. If this requirement is not met, mitigation is required at the same trees/acre ratio.  227 29.9 68  DATE SCALE CROSS CREEK 1587 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY SUITE B APPROVED TL 5973-1 1"=30' P.O. BOX 30575 PROJECT NO. AEF/TL OVERALL SITE PLAN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29417 LAST REVISED SUMMERVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA (843) 571-2622 FAX (843) 571-6780 JUNE 20, 2023 CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING SHEET NUMBER DRAWN/CHECKED FEBRUARY 1, 2023 AND LAND PLANNING C300 GADSDEN LINTON III ARBORIST REPORT Address: Cross Creek, Crosscreek Drive, Summerville, SC 29483 Prepared By: George Schneidmuller, ISA Certified Arborist SO-10272A Date: June 14, 2023 The following report is a summary of my observations, and recommendations as an ISA Certified Arborist based on a site walk of the above referenced property at Cross Creek in Summerville. The trees on site were observed, evaluated, and photographed on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 7th. The goal of the site walk was to achieve a general understanding of all of the trees on site, and the grand trees (trees larger than 24” diameter at breast height) were individually analyzed and photographed. GENERAL EVALUATION OF ALL TREES ON SITE Overall, the majority of the trees on the site are Pine trees. As the site is densely populated with these pine trees, they are all very upright, with most of the live growth near the tops of the trees. Scattered throughout the Pine trees are several grand Oak trees. These Oaks are a mixture of White Oaks, Water Oaks, Willow Oaks, Laurel Oaks, and a Red Oak. Like the Pine trees, the Oak trees display upright growth as a response to the dense character of the trees on site, and compete with each other for sunlight near the tops of the tree canopies. Several of the Oak trees that have more open space to grow in, have a fuller character than those in more densely populated areas. The majority of the trees on site appear to be healthy, with little to no signs of pest and disease. There is some storm damage and a normal amount of dead branches throughout the trees, and we recommend that trees to remain post-development are trimmed to remove dead and dying branches, and fertilized to optimize their vitality and health after construction. In total, there were 9 grand sized oak trees evaluated on the site, and only 2 of these trees have been proposed for removal (see individual reports for trees E and F). Of the other 7 grand oak trees, 3 of them are located nearby Crosscreek Drive, outside of the limits of construction disturbance, and 4 of the oaks are located in and nearby the wetland area to the north of the site, where construction will also not negatively impact the trees in this area. The highest concentration of the grand oak trees occurs in the wetland area, and this area includes some of the nicer, fuller canopied trees on site, so it is fortunate that these trees exist in this area and can remain. The 25” Oak (Tree M) was evaluated at an earlier site walk, and the tree protection zone was expanded so that this tree could remain. There are also 8 grand sized Pine trees in the protected natural / wetland area that we have recommended remain in order to add a natural asset to the middle of the site, and break up the buildings and parking areas. KEY MAP OF EVALUATED TREES (SHEET 1 OF 2) M I J L K H G F D E C A B KEY MAP OF EVALUATED TREES (SHEET 2 OF 2) N EVALUATIONS OF GRAND TREES (24”+) All Oak trees greater than 24” inches were evaluated with individual reports and photographs below. Due to the high quantity and similarity of the Pine trees on site, several individual Pine tree reports have been provided. TREE A EVALUATION: 30” Oak This White Oak tree is found just inside of the southwestern property corner, and is a healthy tree that we recommend remains. The tree has been afforded more space to grow into than others on site, and as a result as one of the broader, fuller canopies of the evaluated trees. There is a slight co-dominance of the two trunks of the tree, but the branch-bark union appears to be strong. We recommend that the tree be trimmed to remove small amount of dead-wood in the canopy, and fertilized prior to construction activities nearby. TREE A PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE B EVALUATION: 24” OAK (D) This tree is a double trunked Willow Oak, with trunks adding up to 24” DBH. As with Tree A, the branch-bark union appears to be strong and healthy, and although there is some risk of splitting, the tree should be monitored and allowed to remain due to the location of the tree, and buffering qualities of the canopy between the proposed development and Crosscreek Drive. The tree does have some dead wood, particularly in the branch leaning towards the street, and should be pruned to remove deadwood and fertilized prior to construction. TREE B PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE C EVALUATION: 24” PINE This tree is an example of the many Pine trees on site. The tree has very little growth in the bottom 75-85% of the height of the tree, with all of the healthy growth near the top 10% of the tree. This quality of the tree does make it a higher risk of breaking in a wind event due to the weight being unevenly dispersed so high in the tree. Due to the high quantity of Pine trees like this on site, I believe it makes sense that a larger number of Oak trees, with larger canopies and stronger wood, were preserved versus these pines. TREE C PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE D EVALUATION: 27” PINE Similarly to Tree C, this 27” Pine is healthy but the live branches are near the top 10% of the total height of the tree. This is characteristic of all of the Pines on site, due to their proximity and common growth patterns of Pine trees. TREE D PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE E EVALUATION: 24” OAK Like many of the trees on site, the live growth of this 24” Water Oak is near the top of the canopy, which can increase risks of splitting / failing in high wind events. Water Oaks also are one of the weaker and shorter-lived species of Oak, which would add to this concern. Other than the high canopy, and species of Oak, the tree appears to be healthy and pest/disease free, and has one strong central leader. TREE E PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE F EVALUATION: 24” OAK This tree is a White Oak, with a strong central leader, but considerable lean, especially near the top of the tree. As shown in the first picture, the trunk begins to lean some, and approximately halfway up the trunk in the second picture, the main trunk splits out to the right. The lean and structure of this Oak tree make this otherwise healthy White Oak a cause for concern when potentially located near people and property. TREE F PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE G EVALUATION: 29” PINE This 29” Pine is on the edge of the natural wetland buffer area that consists of 12 grand trees to remain, 8 of them being Pine trees. These Pine trees are similar to others on site, and are healthy but with higher live branches in the canopies. There is still a risk, as with most pines, of breaking in high wind events, but it is safer to leave these trees in the natural area where they will not be a risk to people and buildings. They also will add some screening, and greenery to the center of the project site and break up the masses of buildings and parking areas. TREE G PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE H EVALUATION: 26” PINE This 26” Pine is located further into the wetland area than the previously evaluated 29” Pine. This tree is healthy and exhibits the same characteristics as the 29” Pine. TREE H PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE I EVALUATION: 26” OAK Tree I is an upright, 26” Oak tree, with live branches and foliage a bit higher up in the canopy than some of the other oaks on site, likely due to its close proximity to other trees, including Tree J. The Oak is healthy and shows little to no signs of pests and diseases, and has a limited deadwood and storm damage throughout the tree. Like the Pine trees evaluated in the wetland area, this tree poses little threat due to its location away from people, cars, buildings, and parking, and can safely be preserved to add to the character of the site. TREE I PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE J EVALUATION: 24” OAK Tree J is another Oak tree, measuring 24”, and located adjacent to Tree I. The same characteristics of Tree I apply to Tree J, and it should be preserved in the natural protected wetland area, with other nearby healthy trees. In addition to the grand trees evaluated in this area, there are also smaller Oaks, Sweetgums, Maples, and Pines to remain. TREE J PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE K EVALUATION: 24” OAK Tree K is a 24” Oak located to the east of Pine Tree H. This Oak tree is healthy, but does have some structural issues, including a significant lean. Given the fact that the lean is towards the center of the wetland area, away from the nearby parking lot, I would recommend allowing this tree to remain and observing it over time to ensure that it stays healthy and that the lean does not worsen. TREE K PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE L EVALUATION: 26” PINE Tree L is a 26” Pine, one of the 8 grand sized Pine trees in the wetland / tree protection area. This tree exhibits similar characteristics of Tree G, H, and the other Pines in the area, and should remain to help add a natural quality to the site. TREE L PHOTOGRAPH: TREE M EVALUATION: 25” OAK Tree M is a 25” Red Oak, located outside of the designated wetland area. In a previous site visit, this tree was marked for removal, but after observing the tree, site plans were updated to protect this tree. The tree is healthy and unlike most of the trees on site, has a canopy that is more characteristic of Oak trees in open areas. There are large, healthy branches about halfway up the trunk of the tree, and the canopy continues to spread outward to the tips of the tree. This tree is one of the nicer trees and is an asset to the site and should be preserved. TREE M PHOTOGRAPHS: TREE N EVALUATION: 27” OAK Tree N is an 27” Oak tree located nearby Crosscreek Drive, outside the limits of construction disturbance. The Tree is healthy, has a strong central leader, and has been afforded room for the canopy to spread out, more-so than many of the other trees on site. There is some deadwood throughout the canopy of the tree, and I would recommend that the tree be trimmed to remove deadwood, and fertilized prior to construction in order to increase the tree’s vigor and response to nearby construction activity. TREE N PHOTOGRAPH:  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting September 12, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 8/28/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Southern Environment – Adam Snyder Owner: Crestview MHP (Rickert Properties) Requested Action: Removal of 45” Live Oak and 25” Red Oak Location: behind 500 Crestview Dr. & between 575 and 577 Crestview 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: Live Oak – poor weight distribution due to phototropism and visible damage to the trunk; Red Oak – limb damage Staff Evaluation: 45” Live Oak – was hit by lightning in the past which caused trunk damage, but appears to have healed itself well, some dieback in the canopy 25” Red Oak – appears to have a couple of damaged limbs in the canopy, otherwise appears healthy Mitigation 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.