Tree Protection Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE TREE PROTECTION BOARD – AGENDA February 12, 2024 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, 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. Approval of Minutes January 8, 2024 minutes Old Business New Business 1. 603 W 5th North St.- 65 Tree removals for new construction. 2. 311 W. Carolina St.- Removal of concrete filled Live Oak 3. 111B Canvasback Dr. – Removal of large Pine Miscellaneous 1. Tree Ordinance Amendments Discussion Adjournment Posted February 6, 2024  Tree Protection Board Minutes Monday, January 8th, 2023 Members Present: Peter Wallace Danny Burbage Claude Burns David Morris Staff Present: Nick Wilson, Arborist Becca Zimmerman, Planner II Approval of Minutes: The meeting was called to order at 9:00am. Mr. Wallace asked for consideration of the December meeting minutes. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Old Business: 1. 116 E Walker Dr – Removal of 11 trees The property owner and arborist were present. The Board opted to address the trees on the applications by breaking them down into groups for review. Trees 1-4 – Mr. Burbage stated that he was okay with the removal of the magnolia and one of the pines, but that tree number 3 should be kept. Mr. Burns agreed and made a motion to approve the removal of trees 1, 2, and 4 and to deny the removal of tree 3. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Trees 5-9 – Mr. Wallace stated that trees 5, 7, and 9 seemed to be okay for removal, but that he did not see reason to remove trees 6 and 8. Mr. Burbage asked Mr. Rice, the  arborist, for more information about tree 8. Mr. Rice explained that tree 8 had a section of rot measuring about 16” in diameter. Mr. Burns asked if the applicant would be willing to move the shed near tree 5 to resolve an issue with the tree’s root flare affecting the shed’s foundation, but the applicant stated that it would be very expensive to do so. Mr. Wallace motioned to approve the removal of trees 5, 7, and 9, to hold judgement on tree 6 to evaluate damage to the shed, and to hold judgement on tree 8 to investigate the area of decay. Mr. Wallace added that Mr. Wilson could approve tree 8 at a staff level should the decay be enough to warrant removal. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Trees 10-13 – Mr. Wallace stated that this was a “motley crew” of trees. Mr. Wallace explained that trees 10, 11, and 12 were not salvageable but that tree 13 was difficult to judge. Mr. Burns agreed with Mr. Wallace’s assessment and added that tree 13 should remain for another season to be observed. The Board discussed tree 13 with the applicant and arborist. Mr. Burbage moved to approve trees 10-13, Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 with a dissenting vote from Mr. Burns. 2. 103 Telscombe Ct – Removal of 7 pines No representative was present. Mr. Wallace stated that most of the trees were relatively healthy, but that many would need to be limbed up to resolve most of their issues. The Board discussed a large wound in tree 7. The Board discussed two trees in the corner of the lot, trees 6 and 7, and determined that they had the most cause for concern. Mr. Burns motioned to approve the removal of trees 6 and 7 and to deny the remaining trees. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 3. 242 Comiskey Park Cir – Removal of 1 pine and 1 oak No representative was present. As discussed at the December meeting, the pine appeared to be impacted by some sort of boring beetle. Mr. Burns stated that he wished to contact the Forestry Commission for a potential identification of the exact species. Mr. Burbage stated that he would be willing to move forward with the removal of the pine tree but that the water oak should be retained. After further discussion, Mr. Burns moved to approve the removal of the pine tree but to deny the removal of the water oak. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 4. 408 Parkwood Dr – Removal of 1 live oak No representative was present. Mr. Burbage stated that the tree in question was a beautiful tree, but that he accepted the opinion of the provided arborist letter that the tree should be removed. Mr. Burns agreed. Mr. Wallace moved to allow the removal of the live oak contingent upon mitigation as assigned by Town staff due to the damage  being caused by construction work. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. New Business: 1. 312 S Hickory St – TPZ encroachment of live oak The Board discussed the proposed construction plan with Ms. Zimmerman. Following discussion, Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the plan as presented. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 2. 409 Amberjack Way – Removal of 5 pines and 1 oak The applicant chose to withdraw the application prior to review by the Board. As such, this item was not reviewed. 3. 116 Cromwell Ct – Removal of 2 pines The property owner was present. The property owner expressed safety concerns with the proximity of the pines to the residence. The Board discussed the potential hazards of the trees. Ultimately, Mr. Burbage moved to approve tree 1 and to deny the removal of tree 2. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Miscellaneous: None Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45am on a motion by Mr. Burbage and a second by Mr. Burns. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Date:____________________ Nick Wilson Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Approved: Mr. Wallace, Chair _____________________; or, Ms. Campbell, Vice Chair ____________________________  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting February 12, 2024 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 2/5/24 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Taylor Coastal Construction Owner: DB Properties LLC Requested Action: Removal of 65 Trees of various species (Mostly Pinus pallustrus) Location: 603 W 5th N 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: Construction of Business Offices and associated parking. Staff Evaluation: This lot is heavily wooded with a large population of Longleaf Pines. Tree Board should review removals as well as make recommendations on proper tree protection for all retained trees. 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 February 12/2024 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 2/5/24 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Planet Green Landscapes Owner: Stacey Brooks Requested Action: Removal of maltreated Live Oak 44” DBH Location: 311 W. Carolina 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: (1) 44" live oak tree in front yard 9 feet from the house, with 6.5-foot long by 1.5-foot wide cavity filled with bricks and concrete from the ground up. The tree also has severe dieback throughout the entire canopy. Cast iron sewer lines have been damaged several times; new sewer lines will be installed and will damage the root structure, which will cause more damage to tree. Staff Evaluation: Can’t approve at staff level: 1 Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) DBH 44”, Tree has a severe cavity in the trunk facing the house as well as some cavities in large leads up in its canopy. Cavity has been filled with concrete which is no longer a common practice as it is detrimental to CODIT process. However, tree has a full canopy and appears to be surviving its current conditions. Though I agree this tree has some SERIOUS issues, it must be reviewed by TPB prior to removal due to the species’ ability to withstand extreme conditions. In short, removal of the tree should not be taken lightly. Requirements if Approved: UDO Section 8.3.1.C.1 Individual Tree Removal (Post-Occupancy, No Construction Activity) Note (1) Removal without mitigation is permitted if necessitated by emergencies, death, disease or damage not caused by the property owner as determined by staff.  STAFF REPORT Tree Protection Board Meeting February 12/2024 To: Town of Summerville Tree Protection Board From: Nick Wilson, Arborist/Natural Resource Planner Date: 2/5/23 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Applicant: Dennis Davis Owner: Dennis Davis Requested Action: Removal of 1 Pine Location: 111b Canvasback 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: Internal damage to home. Proximity. Staff Evaluation: Can’t approve at staff level: 1 Pine (Pinus taeda) DBH 32”, Tree is 6’ from home. There is a large weeping vertical wound about 40’ up the trunk. And some slight imperfections throughout. The tree is otherwise quite healthy with very good LCR and structure. Some slight shingling of the bark and some dead stubs within canopy indicate potential for internal decay. However, mallet test sounds consistent throughout. 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.