Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA October 9, 2023 Town Hall, Town Council Chambers The meeting will be live-streamed through the live-streaming link on the Town’s website: www.summervillesc.gov For additional information regarding items on this agenda including any public hearings, please contact the Planning Department at planning@summervillesc.gov or 843.998.3811. Applications and related documents for this meeting are available for review at any time at www.summervillesc.gov/AgendaCenter. Public that chooses to attend this meeting in person will be strongly encouraged to wear a mask and abide by social distancing requirements. Approval of Minutes September 12, 2023 minutes Old Business 1. 100 N. Hampton St – Removal of 7 Pines 2. 116 E. Walker Dr. – Removal of over 22 trees New Business 1. 102 Bradd St. – Removal of 5 trees. 2. 105 Towering Pine Dr.- Removal of 6 Pines 3. 408 Parkwood Dr.- Removal/Advisement on 1 Live Oak Miscellaneous 1. UFMP Recommendations Discussion Adjournment Posted October 2, 2023  Tree Protection Board – September 12th, 2023 Board Members Present: Peter Wallace Faye Campbell Danny Burbage Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Remy Clark, Planner I Approval of Minutes: The meeting was called to order at 9:02 am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the August 7th, 2023 minutes. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. Old Business – NONE New Business 1. 2025 Shoal Creek Ct – Removal of 2 Pines A representative was present. The representative explained that they had made previous efforts to preserve trees on their property, but that the pines in question were causing damage to both their driveway and their neighbor’s driveway. The applicant also explained that the roots were impacting the sewer line and one tree was hanging over the neighbor’s house. Mr. Wallace stated that both trees were incredibly healthy, despite the lean on one of the pines. Discussion was had regarding the damage to the sewer line. Mr. Burbage concurred with Mr. Wallace’s assessment, but added that the homeowner could have a certified arborist inspect the trees and submit a letter outlining any structural deficiencies. Mr. Wallace agreed. Mr. Burbage moved to deny the application with the suggestion to seek the advice of certified arborist and provide a supporting letter. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 2. 106 Kapalua Run – Removal of 3 Pines No representative was present. Mr. Wallace explained that the property owner wished to build a pergola, but that the pergola would jeopardize the two trees closest to the site. He added that the third tree did have a defect that justified removal. Mr. Burbage agreed and added that the applicant could pursue alternate designs using cantilever or other methods to minimize impact on the trees. Ms. Campbell stated that the applicant could work out a different location for the pergola that would not impact the trees. Mr. Wallace moved to deny the removal of pines 1 and 2 and to allow the owner to come back before the Board with a revised plan to accommodate them. Mr. Wallace also moved to approve the removal of pine 3. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 3. 100 N Hampton St – Removal of 7 Pines The property owner was present. He explained that the trees were causing damage to his mother’s home with limbs dropping onto the roof. He added that the pines on the property were not planted, but volunteers that happened to grow on the property. Mr. Wallace stated that, of the seven pines, numbers 3 and 5 were of the most risk. Mr. Wallace added that most of the others could likely remain and recommended pruning as a more economical solution than removal. Mr. Wallace stated that he would have to revisit the site again for a closer look. The owner stated that he would be happy to provide another look, adding that the property had recently been rezoned to accommodate vehicular sales and that he did not want to have pine trees on such a lot. The owner stated that he would be happy to carry the item over to the next meeting if the Board would like to revisit. Mr. Wallace stated that he would be comfortable taking another look and moved to defer the item to the October 9th meeting for further assessment. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 4. 410 Thomaston Ave – Removal of 1 Sweetgum The applicant did not pay the required fees by the payment deadline. This item was not reviewed. 5. 121 Blake Dr – Removal of 1 Hickory and 1 Oak No representative was present. Mr. Wallace explained that it was a difficult item to assess. Mr. Wallace stated that the hickory tree was exceedingly healthy and posed no issues besides the shedding of hickory nuts. Mr. Wallace stated that he could only approve the removal of the hickory if mitigation were enforced. He added that he would be willing to approve the removal of the oak. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the removal of the oak and to approve the removal of the hickory under the condition that proper mitigation is applied. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 6. 116 E Walker Dr – Removal of 19 Pines and 3 Magnolias The property owner was sick on the day of the meeting and was unable to attend. At the owner’s request, Mr. Wallace moved to defer the item to the October 9th, 2023 meeting. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 7. 516 Central Ave – Removal of 1 Laurel Oak The property owner was present. The Board noted that the tree was obviously in poor health. The owner’s present a Tree Risk Assessment recommending the tree’s removal. Mr. Wallace moved to approve the removal of the oak. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 8. 105 Towering Pine Dr – Removal of 6 Pines The applicant did not pay the required fees by the payment deadline. This item was not reviewed. 9. 105 Long Needle Ln – Removal of triple-trunked Oak The property owner was present. The owner explained that the tree was causing damage and leaning, adding that the root plate appeared to be lifting. Mr. Burbage stated that there were certainly potential structural deficiencies at the joining of the trunks and that he would be willing to approve its removal. Mr. Wallace stated that he would like to see mitigation for the removal. The owner stated that they were certainly willing to mitigate. Ms. Campbell stated that it would have to be a canopy tree. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the removal of the triple-trunked oak and to recommend mitigation. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. Following the  approval, Mr. Wallace stated that the pruning that had been done on the lot was done improperly and seemed excessive. Discussion was had. 10. 115 Pressley Ave – Removal of 1 Oak, 1 Pecan, and 2 Hackberries The property owner was present. The owner was looking to replace an existing fence while avoiding an existing swale on the property. Mr. Wallace stated that the Board understood the situation, but that he had difficulty permitting the removal of the trees without considering potential alternatives. Mr. Wallace suggested considering alternative materials for the fence posts to mitigate any rotting. The owner stated that the fence was falling apart, partially due to a previously fallen tree. She added that the trees were also encroaching on the house, with the pecan in particular causing concerns. Mr. Burbage stated the he did not see anything on the pecan that caused concern. Mr. Wallace asked if the owner had considered leaving the trees and putting the fence further inside the property lines. The owner stated that she had not as she was only looking to replace the existing fence. Mr. Wallace stated that pruning could be done to relieve concern about some of the trees. Mr. Burbage stated that reconsidering the placement of the fence and pruning the trees would be easier and less expensive than removal. The owner stated that price is not an issue, but that she wanted to do the right thing. After some discussion, the owner felt comfortable with reconsidering the placement and materials of the fence, but asked the Board to consider removing the pecan due to safety concerns. Mr. Burbage stated that he would be willing to approve its removal so long as the other trees remain. The Board discussed the merits of removing the pecan, with Mr. Wallace ultimately moving to approve its removal. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 11. 101 Dana Ct – Removal of 1 Maple and 1 Sweetgum No representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that both trees needed to be removed and that the maple needed to go as soon as possible. Mr. Wallace moved to approve the removal of both trees. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 12. Crestview MHP – Removal of 2 Oaks No representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that he would like to have the large live oak be evaluated by a certified arborist. Mr. Burbage agreed. Mr. Wallace moved to approve the removal of the red oak and to have a certified arborist inspect the live oak  and provide a letter assessing its health. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 13. Crosscreek Dr – Removal of trees for construction of mixed-use development No representative was present. Mr. Wilson explained that the applicant had recently submitted alterations that would save an additional 2.4% of canopy as compared to the initial plan. He added that he was pleased to see some younger trees being saved, which would benefit the future of the canopy. Mr. Wallace agreed. Mr. Wilson stated that four grand trees and 15 trees total were to be save in addition to the initial plan. Mr. Wallace stated that he was impressed with the edits. Ms. Campbell commended the attitude of the developers and their willingness to make changes to the plan and the Board’s recommendation. Mr. Burbage stated that it was one of the best arborist reports he’d seen and that he was pleased to see that they made a good plan even better. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the plan as presented. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. Miscellaneous – Mr. Burbage commended the work of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Clark. Mr. Wallace stated that the short-form information packets proved helpful and that he wished to have them provided for every meeting going forward. Ms. Campbell concurred. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 am on a motion by Mr. Burbage 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 October 9, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 9/29/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Thomas Limehouse Owner: Thomas Limehouse Requested Action: Removal of 7 Pine Trees Location: 100 N. Hampton 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: Lot used for automotive care/storage. Limb drop and damage to structures/cars primary concerns. Staff Evaluation: Can't approve at staff level: 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. 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 October 9, 2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 9/29/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Mark Hammond Owner: Mark Hammond Requested Action: Removal of 22 Trees of various Genus/species Location: 116 E. Walker 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/Lawn cultivation/Aesthetics 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. Can't approve at staff level. Pine 2: 19" DBH, Low LCR, vine encumbered, good taper, healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 3: 20" DBH, Vines, good LCR, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 4: 29" DBH, Vines, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 5: 25" DBH, Healthy, some irregular growth. Can't approve at staff level. Pine 6: 25" DBH, Large lightning strike. Uncompartmentalized wounds "catface" presents reasonable degree of hazard. Approved. Magnolia 1 (#7): 18"/12" DBH, Multistemmed, good union between codoms (no inclusion), No obvious defects. Can't approve at staff level. Pine 7 (#8): 26" DBH, some superficial woodpecker damage, loaded towards home, appears healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 8 (#9): 24" DBH, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 9 (#10): 22" DBH, irregular growth, good taper, healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 10 (#11): 17" DBH, Very good LCR, young, Healthy, vigorous. Can't approve at staff level. DRIVEWAY STARTING FROM ROAD Pine 11 (#12): 19" DBH, Adjacent to driveway, Healthy, good taper, Large root lining driveway, some roots crossing driveway (gravel), Can't approve at staff level. Pine 12 (#13): 23" DBH, some irregular growth (epicormic spouts), Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. BACKYARD BEGINNING AT RIGHT CORNER Pine 13 (#14): 24" DBH, located 12' from home, Pinus pallustrus, some weeping, appears healthy. Can't approve at staff level. Pine 14 (#15): Slick bark, fully mature, Adjacent to neighbors fence, canopy looks a little sparse, otherwise healthy. Can't approve at staff level. Magnolia 2 (#16) 20" DBH, Healthy, vigorous, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 15 (#17) 21" DBH, Large seam on backside, appears compartmentalized, may still effect 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. Can't approve at staff level. Pine 16 (#18): 18" DBH, Pinus pallustrus, severe cavity at base. Approved for removal. Pine 17 (#19): 24" DBH, Large, fully mature, slick bark, some irregular growth. Healthy. Can't approve at staff level. Magnolia 3 (#20) 18" DBH, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 18 (#21): 18" DBH, located 3' from shed, 18' from house, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. Pine 19 (#22): 25" DBH, Vine encumbered, 18' from house, Healthy, Can't approve at staff level. 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 reportedly damaged home on multiple occasions. Photos provided were mostly from ice storm in 2014. Tree Board Approval Needed. Arborist recommends 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. 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 October 9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 9/29/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Renea Engermann Owner: Renea Engermann Requested Action: Removal of five trees Location: 102 Bradd 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: Proximity concerns Staff Evaluation: 21” Pinus pallustrus. Front yard. Good taper, great LCR, minimal dieback within canopy. Appears healthy. Very slight phototropic lean. No plate lift. Can’t approve at staff level. 20” Pinus pallustrus. Backyard left side. Healthy, good taper, good LCR. Can’t approve at staff level. 11” Acer rubrum. Backyard. Codominant, included bark, canopy in decline. Likely diseased. Approved for removal. 15” Quercus nigra. Backyard right side. Adjacent/conjoined with Pine. Hollow near base, canopy decline, lean phototropic but hazardous with consideration to hollowing. Approved for removal. 19” Pinus pallustrus. Backyard right side. Adjacent to fence and Oak. Tree is healthy with uneven crown distribution. Removal of Oak could potentially negatively impact root stability in future especially if stump is to be removed. However, tree is currently healthy and of a valuable species. Can’t approve at staff level. Staff approved trees have been marked by arborist with bright green tape. If homeowner is making appeal to Tree Protection Board, all trees applied for must remain until Board Appeal is completed. 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 October 7/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 9/29/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Jose LaPorte Owner: Jose LaPorte Requested Action: Removal of 6 Pines 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: Can't approve at staff level: 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. 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 October 9/2023 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 9/29/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Richard Ford Owner: Richard Ford Requested Action: Removal of 1 Pine (Dead) and 1 Live oak Location: 408 Parkwood 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: Pine tree is dead and poses a threat to falling onto another home. Oak tree is dying and arborist believes it is not salvageable at this time. Staff Evaluation: Approved: 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) Tree is completely dead. Can’t approve at a staff level: 1 Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) 31” DBH. This oak is indeed struggling to bounce back due to apparent damage incurred during the construction of the home. However, it is not yet completely dead and could potentially be salvaged with an arborist care program (air spade, pruning, fertilization, etc). Tree Board Appeal recommended for second opinion on viability of 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.  RECOMMENDATIONS THE VISION FOR SUMMERVILLE’S TREES The purposeful planting, protection, and care of Summerville’s trees will distinguish the town as a place of beauty, health, and vitality for residents and visitors. GOALS 1. Better understand how to preserve and grow tree canopy. 2. Shift away from reactive maintenance of the town’s public trees and toward proactive maintenance. 3. Demonstrate the benefits of trees to town leadership and residents. 4. Help garner resources to support a robust urban forestry program. 5. Integrate urban forestry with other town priorities. 62 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were developed based on the needs, priorities, and themes that were identified from data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and public outreach. They are numbered for ease of reference, not in order of priority. Action steps related to each recommendation are listed, but these are not exhaustive. In the process of implementing the UFMP, the Town will likely identify additional actions that are necessary to support tree canopy growth. 1. Regularly update Summerville’s urban tree canopy assessment 2. Complete a comprehensive tree inventory of all right-of-way and park trees 3. Grow the Town’s urban forestry program to match the desired level of service 4. Develop an urban forest management plan for the Town’s public trees 5. Integrate urban forestry planning and resources into a parks and recreation master plan 6. Leverage public and stakeholder support for trees to advance funding and partnerships for urban forestry 7. Refine existing tree protection policies for private residential property and development 8. Establish a program to prioritize tree planting in locations that advance town sustainability and equity goals R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S 63  1. REGULARLY UPDATE SUMMERVILLE’S URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT 2. COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE TREE INVENTORY OF ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARK TREES Summerville completed an urban tree canopy assessment as part of its current UFMP process. Industry standards recommend updating urban A GIS-based tree inventory is the foundation of an urban forestry program, tree canopy assessments every five to ten years to track canopy growth providing information on the location, composition, condition, risk, and and losses over time. Repeating priority planting analyses with each urban maintenance needs of publicly managed trees. Inventory information is tree canopy assessment will help the Town target its tree planting program useful and necessary for prioritizing tree care activities and delivering urban as tree canopy changes over time. forestry services efficiently and cost effectively. Actions: Actions: 1.1. Create a plan and identify funding to update the Town’s urban 2.1 Secure funding for a public tree inventory tree canopy assessment in 2026 2.2 Complete a full inventory of right-of-way trees and park trees 1.2. Include a priority planting analysis with each urban tree 2.3 Apply to SCDOT for an inventory of their trees to direct Town- canopy assessment managed maintenance activities on SCDOT trees 2.4 Explore tree management software and/or GIS solutions that can incorporate tree inventory data from development projects and other third-party sources 64 S U M M E RV I L L E U R B A N F O R E S T M A S T E R P L A N 3. GROW THE TOWN’S URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM TO MATCH THE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE 4. DEVELOP AN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN’S PUBLIC TREES The Town does not currently have an urban forest management plan. The Town currently has very limited capacity for urban forestry activities and A management plan is more detailed than a master plan—it uses tree does not have access to the data or resources needed to undertake proactive inventory data to evaluate and prioritize the risk and maintenance needs maintenance of the Town’s public trees. Adequate staffing, training, and of public trees, outline budget and resources needed to address them, and equipment will allow the Town to effectively oversee inventory, maintenance, provide a schedule for completion. It is typically owned by municipal staff and planting work and shift toward proactive maintenance of public trees. and plans work over a three- to five-year timeline. Additional resource costs can be offset by savings from fewer emergency calls An urban forest management plan can outline work to establish a new and more tree benefits. program to monitor and address threats to the Town’s tree canopy. A desired level of service can be identified using expertise of Town staff Environmental threats in Summerville include hurricanes, pests and and the Tree Protection Board, informed by public opinion, and verified diseases, and climate change, which all pose risks to tree canopy that can and supported by Town Council. At minimum, one staff member who is an be costly and/or destructive. A program to monitor and address threats can International Society of Arboriculture Certified arborist or Certified Tree establish preventative measures to reduce or avoid damage and plans for Care worker would enable the town to more effectively supervise work that early detection and response. is contracted to tree care companies. Three forestry staff would allow the Actions: Town to conduct all tree pruning and tree removal operations safely and 4.1 Using information in this UFMP, pursue support from South in accordance with the United States Department of Labor Occupational Carolina Forestry Commission to develop an urban forest Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards53 and ANSI Z133 Safety management plan Requirements for Arboricultural Operations54. 4.2 Establish a ten-year pruning cycle for the Town’s public trees Actions: 4.3 Detail a three- to five-year work plan 3.1 Formalize an urban forestry program within town government 4.4 Begin a program to monitor and address environmental threats to 3.2 Hire one dedicated urban forestry staff member who is a certified Summerville’s trees arborist in the Parks and Recreation Department to oversee urban 4.5 Establish an urban tree health program to monitor for threats forestry operations 4.6 Develop an urban forestry storm response and recovery plan 3.3 Hire up to two additional staff in the Parks and Recreation in coordination with town and county waste management and Department who are dedicated to urban forestry to conduct work in emergency response departments to become part of the Dorchester tree planting and tree trimming County hazard mitigation and debris management plans 3.4 Establish a line item for urban forestry in the Town budget 3.5 Annually report on urban forestry metrics R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S 65  SUMMERVILLE CANOPY GOAL SCENARIOS A municipal tree canopy goal provides inspiration for change and helps to establish metrics for measuring progress. Even with the latest data about be added each year to achieve Summerville’s canopy goal. The scenarios do urban tree canopy and its benefits, setting a canopy goal can be more of not consider annexation of additional land, which can be another a strategy an art than a science. Ultimately, a canopy goal is a reflection of the town’s to change the town’s average tree cover. The scenarios can be summarized as: unique vision about what is both inspiring and achievable for Summerville. 1. No Action: This baseline scenario assumes that an annual loss of 205 acres of tree canopy per year will continue into the future with Examining different tree canopy scenarios is a first step to planning out no net changes in tree planting or preservation. In this scenario, work that will be needed to achieve a canopy goal. These scenarios should Summerville’s tree canopy is projected to decline to 20.3% by 2040. consider existing data about tree canopy change, future development 2. Planting 100 Trees per Year: This scenario assumes that the Town of Summerville will plant 100 trees per year from 2023-2040. This patterns, and planned efforts to grow tree canopy. In Summerville from scenario does not consider additional tree planting or preservation 2015-2019, among all causes for tree removal (pest/disease, storm damage, in the private sector. Annual losses of tree canopy of 205 acres per landowner decisions, old age) and all tree planting and maintenance year will continue. Under this scenario, there will be a net change of -204 acres of tree canopy per year, yielding a projected tree canopy activities, the town saw a total net loss of 821 acres of tree canopy over four cover of 20.5% by 2040. years, or an average of 205 acres of tree canopy lost per year. 3. 35% Tree Canopy Cover by 2040: A concerted effort to preserve Five scenarios for Summerville tree canopy are presented below, starting existing tree canopy and offset development losses would result in an attenuated loss of urban forest to 35% cover by 2040. It is with Summerville’s current goal of no net loss of tree canopy (Figure 12, estimated that this would require the addition of 7,830 new trees per Table 10). Canopy scenarios projected out observed tree canopy losses from year on average, beginning in 2023 and sustained over 17 years. This 2015-2019 and include estimates of the tree canopy acres that would need to goal considers all planting and preservation that would take place across Summerville, not only town-owned property but also private residences, businesses, institutions, parks, and natural areas. This 50% goal could be further broken down by geography and/or land use 5. Canopy Goal: type to build equity of tree canopy and associated benefits. 45% No Net Loss 4. 40% Tree Canopy Cover by 2040: This scenario is similar to above but considers the planting of 10,489 trees per year on average to 4. Canopy Goal: 40% 40% by 2040 attenuate losses to 40% tree cover by 2040. Canopy Cover (%) 5. No Net Loss: The current canopy goal for Summerville will require 35% 3. Canopy Goal: scaling up planting and preservation efforts from 2023-2040 to 35% by 2040 match average annual losses, resulting in no net change to tree 30% canopy cover over time. In this scenario, 205 acres of new tree 2. Planting 100 canopy would need to be created each year to counter losses; 25% Trees per Year this is equivalent to adding 14,178 new trees per year across Summerville on both public and private land. As a result, tree cover 20% 1. No Action will remain steady at 45.6% through 2040. 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 Figure 11. Canopy cover over time under five canopy goal scenarios for Summerville 66 S U M M E RV I L L E U R B A N F O R E S T M A S T E R P L A N Table 10. Canopy cover and the estimated number of tree plantings needed per year to achieve five canopy goal scenarios ANNUAL NET CANOPY ACRE ESTIMATED TREES TO BE CANOPY COVER 2019: CANOPY ACRES CANOPY COVER CHANGE IN CANOPY CHANGE PLANTED 6,638 ACRES (45.6%) 2040 2040 ACRES 2023-2040 PER YEAR 2023-2040* Scenario 1: 2,942 20.3% -3,696 -205 0 No Action Scenario 2: Planting 100 2,968 20.5% -3,670 -204 100 Trees per Year Scenario 3: Canopy Goal: 5,077 35.0% -1,561 -87 7,830 35% by 2040 Scenario 4: Canopy Goal: 5,803 40.0% -836 -46 10,489 40% by 2040 Scenario 5: Canopy Goal: 6,638 45.8% 0 0 14,178 No Net Loss (45.6%) * Assumes that 2015-2019 trend of -205 acres of canopy cover per year continues R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S 67  5. INTEGRATE URBAN FORESTRY PLANNING AND RESOURCES INTO A PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN 6. LEVERAGE PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT FOR TREES TO ADVANCE FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR URBAN FORESTRY A parks and recreation master plan guides the sustainable care of public natural assets including parks, trails, trees, and natural areas. It provides an Summerville’s residents understand the value and benefits of trees and have overarching vision for the appearance of the Town’s parks, identifies goals for built civic pride around living in the Flowertown in the Pines. This high level green space function, assists with placemaking, and proposes connections of public understanding and support can be leveraged to help implement and changes to existing green space to improve its use and value. the Town’s urban forest master plan. During community engagement for the Summerville UFMP, stakeholders Actions: identified a need for a broader green space plan to help set a vision for the 6.1 Expand the duties of the Tree Protection Board to include advocacy future of the Flowertown in the Pines. Using urban tree canopy data and the for urban forestry operations priority planting analysis, a parks and recreation master plan can leverage 6.2 Build a coalition of public and private partners to guide urban forestry resources to identify areas where trees can enhance the implementation of the urban forestry master plan beauty and function of parks and connections. 6.3 Foster volunteer programs for tree planting, education, pest/ disease detection, and advocacy Actions: 5.1 Engage stakeholders across Town departments, businesses, 6.4 Create a diverse and sustainable funding stream for urban forestry nonprofit organizations, and the general public to develop a parks that utilizes public funds, grants, fees, and donations and recreation master plan 6.5 Leverage existing resources such as Master Gardeners to help with 5.2 Incorporate the Town’s urban forest master and management tree planting, care, and public outreach plans into a parks and recreation master plan 6.6 Coordinate with bordering townships, county government, and 5.3 Consider acquisition of natural areas with existing tree canopy as regional stakeholders on urban forestry policies and plans part of the Town’s growth and annexation plan 6.7 Allow for flexible spending of funds to support both contracted and 5.4 Utilize equity data resources to target investment in parks and trail in-house urban forestry operations as needed networks 68 S U M M E RV I L L E U R B A N F O R E S T M A S T E R P L A N 7. REFINE EXISTING TREE PROTECTION POLICIES FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT 8. ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PRIORITIZE TREE PLANTING IN LOCATIONS THAT ADVANCE TOWN SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY GOALS Summerville was founded on strong tree protection policies and has a recent unified development ordinance that is designed to balance tree The Town’s tree planting program is consistently funded on an annual protection and growth. Public comment indicated possible disparities basis, but placement of new trees is ad hoc. Cataloging and prioritizing tree between tree protections on private residential property and development planting locations makes efficient use of limited resources and maximizes sites. tree benefits. In Summerville, prioritizing planting locations that are outside Evaluating and refining tree protections by zoning category, with provisions of the right-of-way can help alleviate tree conflicts with utilities and signage. that separate private residential property from development projects, Actions: can provide additional nuance within the Town’s policies that makes tree 8.1 Continue and expand Summerville Roots for Trees protection more equitable across stakeholder groups. 8.2 Focus town planting activities within high-priority areas for stormwater management, equity, and economic development Actions: 7.1 Refine tree protections by zoning category, creating separate 8.3 Leverage the local health sector to create planting programs that provisions for large developments address local health priorities 7.2 Expand mitigation fees to consider the value of trees based on 8.4 Provide resources for tree planting on private property industry standard appraisal methods 8.5 Use the priority planting analysis to reestablish the Tree Bank 7.3 Utilize utility permits to review and approve tree trimming and removal along utilities corridors and the right-of-way 7.4 Revise ordinances to allow for more flexible spending of the tree fund to support urban forestry activities 7.5 Increase communication and coordination between the Tree Protection Board and the Design Review Board 7.6 Revise policies to provide more oversight of tree pruning and removal by utilities in the ROW 7.7 As infrastructure in the ROW is updated, relocate overhead utilities underground to reduce conflicts with trees R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S 69  VALUATION OF TREES The Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Ed.), authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, details three methods for accurately valuing trees.55 These methods can form the basis for establishing mitigation fees that more accurately capture the costs of tree removal that will be borne by the public. One example is the Trunk Formula Technique, which extrapolates the cost to replace an appraised tree from the purchase price of the largest commonly available nursery tree. In Summerville, this technique may assist in the more accurate valuation of Protected Trees and Grand Trees. The method is summarized as: Tree Value = Base Value x Cross-sectional Area x Species Class x Condition Class x Location Class Base Value Tree appraisers can provide additional guidance about the different appraisal methods and make recommendations for the Town of Summerville. Some tree management software automatically calculates the value of trees according to popular appraisal methods using inventory data. 70 S U M M E RV I L L E U R B A N F O R E S T M A S T E R P L A N