Parks & Shade Tree City of Rehoboth Beach Commission 229 Rehoboth Avenue Telephone 302-227-6181 P.O. Box 1163 www.cityofrehoboth.com Rehoboth Beach, Delaware 19971 PARKS & SHADE TREE COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Commissioners Room, 2nd Floor Monday, October 22, 2018; 2:00 p.m. AGENDA Page 1. Call to Order 2. Welcome new members. 3. Roll Call 4. Correspondence Email received October 18, 2018 from Sturges Dodge, 512 New 3 - 13 Castle Street Extended - in support of City Arborist decision for 318 Country Club Drive Letter received October 19, 2018 from Brian Patterson, 105 Country Club Drive - in opposition to tree removal Email received October 19, 2018 from Susan Gay, 316 Country Club Drive - in opposition to tree removal at 318 Country Club Drive Email received October 22, 2018 from Brian Patterson, 105 Country Club Drive - in response to 17 pages of additional material submitted for 318 County Club Drive 5. Approval of Minutes – Meeting held on August 27, 2018 6. Old Business 7. New Business A. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct an administrative appeal hearing pursuant to the Comprehensive Tree Ordinance (Chapter 253 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rehoboth Beach): 1. Appeal Hearing No. 0918-05 requested by Jeff 14 - 22 Meredith of Sussex Tree Inc. on behalf of Tim Mahoney, owner of the property located at 237 Rehoboth Avenue pursuant to Section 253-36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rehoboth Beach, and pertains to a determination of a fee in lieu of mitigation for one tree. Public Notice - 237 Rehoboth Avenue Arborist Report - 237 Rehoboth Avenue Application with Support Documents - 237 Rehoboth Avenue Page 1 of 84 2. Appeal Hearing No. 0918-06 requested by Jeff 23 - 30 Meredith of Sussex Tree Inc. on behalf of Renee Richardson, owner of the property located at 508 Lee Street pursuant to Section 253-36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rehoboth Beach, and pertains to a determination of a fee in lieu of mitigation for one tree. Public Notice - 508 Lee Street Arborist Report - 508 Lee Street Application with Support Documents - 508 Lee Street 3. Appeal Hearing No. 0918-07 requested by John 31 - 69 McKenna, Winifred McKenna and Mary Ann Stain, owners othe property located at 318 Country Club Drive pursuant to Section 253-36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rehoboth Beach, and pertains to an appeal of a denial of a tree removal application for a 56 inch caliper tree and/or a determination of a fee in lieu of mitigation. Public Notice - 318 Country Club Drive Arborist Report - 318 Country Club Drive Application with Support Documents - 318 Country Club Drive Support Documents - 318 Country Club Drive 4. Appeal Hearing No. 0918-08 requested by Jeff 70 - 84 Meredith of Sussex Tree Inc. on behalf of Bruce Vivari & Barbara Wagner, owners of the property located at 19 Lake Avenue, pursuant to Section 253- 36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rehoboth Beach, and pertains to a determination of a fee in lieu of mitigation for one tree. Public Notice - 19 Lake Avenue Arborist Report - 19 Lake Avenue Application with Support Documents - 19 Lake Avenue 8. Other Business A. City Arborist's Report 9. Adjournment AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE CONSIDERED OUT OF SEQUENCE [Time may not allow for the considereation of all agenda items.] For additional information or special accommodations, please call (302) 227- 6181 (TDD Accessible) 24-hours prior to the meeting. amw: 10/15/18; posted 10/15/18 Page 2 of 84 From: Sturges Dodge <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM Subject: Parks and Shade Tree Commission Appeal Hearing 318 Country Club Drive To: All Members of the Parks and Shade Tree Tree Commission From : Sturges Dodge, 512 New Castle Street Extended, Rehoboth Beach, DE Dear Commissioners, I am writing in support of Liz Lingo, the City Arborist’s decision to deny the request for a tree removal permit for the 176 inch trunk circumference Silver Maple in the rear yard of 318 Country Club Drive. I am also writing in support of the preservation of this significant tree, most likely one of a shrinking group of trees that were present when Country Club Estates was a golf course. This is a tree that could qualify, in my opinion as an Historic Tree per section 253-28 C. Of the Tree Code. I believe that the applicants’ claim for the right to remove the tree is based on section 253-30 (2) (a) (4), which states that ,” the tree is located where it creates or will create a material safety or health hazard or nuisance with respect to existing or proposed structures or vehicles or pedestrian routes, and such hazard or nuisance is not innate to or commonly associated with the existence of trees in general( for example, lightning, wet leaves on the ground during rainstorms”. In my opinion, Ms Lingo, has offered sufficient and substantial solutions to the applicant to ameliorate any perceived or anticipated harms the tree may be causing. In interpreting the code and consulting with the applicant I believe she has correctly executed her duty and is more than justified in denying this application. I would like to remind the Commission, albeit perhaps unnecessarily, that per section 253-36, A. , “ A notice of appeal must be in writing and shall include the applicant’s grounds for appeal. The notice of appeal must identify the error upon which the appeal is based and the grounds for reversal of the Building Inspector’s decision.” Therefore, unless the applicant can convincingly identify an error in Ms Lingo’s and the Building Inspector’s decision, it is incumbent on the Commission to deny this appeal. It is not in my opinion, the Commission’s charge when deciding appeal cases to lessen the protective intent of the code in order to reduce inconvenience or increase potential financial gain for an appellant. I make the above comment in light of at least one other situation in town that I have encountered, where a tree removal was approved based on a complaint that the applicant had to clear roots annually from sewage pipes, a far from financially prohibitive cost, and one that could have been solved by making necessary repairs to aging pipes. In this case a lovely front yard loblolly pine went down shortly before the house was put on the market, demolished, and replaced with a much larger house and a much smaller tree that will never contribute to the City's high tree canopy. I have no way of knowing if the current appellant has similar motives, but it would not surprise me if this is his or her way to “clear the way” toward a more lucrative sale of the property for redevelopment. This would most likely result in the permanent reduction, by one more tree, of the City’s high tree canopy. Sincerely, Sturges Dodge Page 3 of 84 October 19, 2018 Priscilla Smith, Chair Park and Shade Tree Commission City of Rehoboth Beach Via e-mail to: Anne Womack, Secretary [email protected] Ref: Appeal for 318 Country Club Drive Dear Chair and Members of the Park and Shade Tree Commission, I am writing as a homeowner in Country Club Estates and a former member for nine years on the Planning Commission of the City of Rehoboth Beach, in which capacity I worked extensively with the current Tree Ordinance and I was a primary author of the Planning Commission's 2014 draft amendments to the Tree Ordinance. I wish to be recorded in opposition to the application for removal of this tree located in the rear yard at 318 Country Club Drive. On the one hand, this is a fine, healthy, mature shade tree that is protected by the law. This specimen tree bestows immeasurable benefits upon the community, in terms of the enjoyment of its beauty, its shade, its absorption of storm water, its purification of air, etc. On the other hand, neither the original application nor the appeal to this commission satisfies any of the criteria for removing a protected tree. The applicants cite Section 253-30 A(2)(a)(4), but they completely fail to explain how this tree poses the requisite "material safety or health hazard or nuisance." The key word is "material". An alleged hazard or nuisance must be the determining factor precluding use and enjoyment of existing or proposed structures or vehicles or pedestrian routes. No ordinary hazard or nuisance will suffice. Here, the applicants allege hazards that are mundane and common to all mature backyard trees. As the keeper of a towering London planetree in my own backyard on Country Club Drive, I know well the struggle of maintaining a level walkway and a grassy yard with the roots and shade of a large tree. The common possibility that tree roots might cause damage to a foundation, upheaval to a slab or walkway, or damage to a lawnmower blade cannot be avoided in a “Tree City” such as Rehoboth Beach, but such risks can easily be mitigated by reasonable measures short of killing the tree. If those everyday nuisances are sufficient to justify removal of a healthy shade tree, then we may as well not have a Tree Ordinance at all. Page 4 of 84 The applicant raises a number of legal and constitutional arguments that are unconvincing to me as a practicing lawyer for 23 years. With all respect to the Park & Shade Tree Commission, it is not your role to judge the constitutionality of the Tree Ordinance.