Tree Protection Board - Regular Meeting

May 11, 2026

Old Business:

407 N. Magnolia St.

515 W. Boundary St.

Miscellaneous:

Adjourn:

Approval of Minutes:

The meeting was called to order at 9:01am. Mr. Burns moved to approve minutes; Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.

100 Newcastle Ct. - Removal of Three Grand Trees

There were no representatives present. This agenda item was deferred from the April meeting. The three trees requested for removal were a sweetgum, elm tree, and a willow oak hybrid. Mr. Morris stated that the elm tree has a leader with a hollow in it and if that leader happens to be removed, the integrity of the tree would be affected. Mr. Burbage agreed and added that the decay in the leader leads him to believe that the tree could fail. Mr. Burns also agreed and added that some big roots were cut at the base of the tree leading to the cautious risk of failure and stated that he would like to see a request for some type of mitigation for the for the removal of the tree. Mr. Burbage added that due to the fault of the true, mitigation can only be recommended. Mr. Wallace bought attention to the willow oak hybrid that he stated does not appear to have any issues as it looks and seems healthy but it brings the homeowner problems with the production of acorns. He added that the production of the acorns is usually a lawn maintenance issue when they fall from the tree during one point in the year and also stated that if the age of the applicants along with the risk of the deck are being a viable factor, he would like to see 100% mitigation. Mr. Rice stated that the upper canopy and the species of the tree is a concern for him and would agree if the board decided to remove it, there would be a request for 100% mitigation. He added that the tree does not show any sign of decay, but the canopy form is still something he wouldn't usually be comfortable with. Mr. Morris stated that that the acorns dropping once a year is more of a lawn maintenance issue and the tree didn't appear to have any hollows. Mr. Burbage added that he did not see any lack of integrity in the structure and although the crown form is odd, the tree looks healthy and he does not see a reason for removal. Mr. Rice added that he wished the owner would have the tree assessed as requested from the last meeting as there is a possibility that there could be poor formation in the branch union. Mr. Rice and Mr. Burbage with discussion made a motion to deny removal of the of the sweetgum and willow oak hybrid and permit removal for the elm tree. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.

105 Egret Ln. – Removal of One Grand Tree

No representatives were present. This agenda item was deferred from April's meeting. Mr. Wallace started by stating that the tree appeared unhealthy, but that was only because it's leaf break was further behind in progress from other trees which was why it was deferred from last month's meeting to see how it progressed. The tree was healthy when the recent site visit was conducted and Mr. Wallace stated that it could have been a species/environment interaction that slowed the progress. Mr. Wallace made a motion to deny removal of the tree. Mr. Burbage seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.

6108 Pinckney Marsh Ln. – Remove 208 Trees

Representatives were present. This item was deferred from April's meeting. The first representative started with stating the site changes that they have completed along with different revised points that include introducing an underground detention in the lower pond area, shrinking the conventional detention center in the other area of the plan, saved additional trees throughout the entire plan along with reducing the unit count by 10 units at 352. The landscape architect of the representatives added how they kept a park feeling on the left-hand side of the pond along with upping the size of mitigation trees with every tree and plant in the schedule meeting the towns recommendations. Mr. Burns asked if the trees planned to be placed in the buffer are under irrigation to which one of the representatives confirm. Mr. Burbage asked who would monitor the irrigation to which a representative stated that there will be a full-time maintenance staff on site. Mr. Burbage pointed out how the plan consists of 3- and 4-inch trees to meet the requirement, but he would prefer to see 2-inch trees. The representative stated that they have 2 inches for understory trees and 3 inches for canopy trees. Mr. Wallace added that typically there's going to be poor survivability for bigger inch trees. Mr. Burbage stated that a look to see if there's appraise for smaller canopy tree, but the work that has been completed is acceptable. Mr. Morris added that the landscape plan looks really good and he likes the species list. Mr. Rice stated that he noticed willow oaks on the plants list for the parking lot which typically is not good and he stated that he would recommend to use another species. Mr. Burbage added that he wouldn't use willows around paving at all. Mr. Burbage moved to approve the plan as submitted. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Mr. Rice opposed the motion. The motion passed 4-1.

105 Rosedale Ct. – Remove One Pine Tree

Representatives were present. The requested removal was for a possible pool along with concern for possible damage to the home if a storm passes. The owners stated that with the tree in the middle of the backyard is a hindrance on them enjoying the home along with the fact that limbs hang over the bedroom and a storm is strong enough, those limbs falling could damage the home. They spoke of wanting to add a pool, but there would be no room if the tree is still there in the middle of the yard. Mr. Burns stated that the tree looks healthy and he understands the concern for a major storm, but the tree is in good shape and he does not see any issues structurally that would cause the integrity of the tree to fail. He also asked the owners about their wish for the pool and they replied that they have applied for a pool permit and are awaiting the review process. Mr. Wallace added that it would be appropriate to wait and see the results from the pool permit and then return for the tree removal review. Mr. Burbage also added that the Board still has the possibility to vote not to have the tree removed as it isn't a guaranteed process for removal and how the tree might be required to be located. Mr. Wallace made a motion to defer decision until the applicant receives their pool permit. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passes 5-0.

Miscellaneous:

Adjourn:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37am on a motion by Mr. Burns and a second by Mr. Morris. The motion carried unanimously.