Sara, I'm surprised to hear that a judge would talk to you. How did that go?
Below is a report I did for a landowner whose trees were raped by a builder who blatantly broke the rules, but no enforcement happened. The local paper is now looking into it. Names deleted to protect the guilty.
ASSIGNMENT
On May 30, 2006 Mrs. asked me to review town documents regarding the development, and check the accuracy of the claims that the work on that site in regard to the trees followed the town’s requirements and the UDO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trees on the property were damaged after a fence was moved, before a fence was installed, and again during a trespass. The cost of curing the damages is $2,970.00. The Town of can assess a penalty of $40,000.00, plus the cost of restoring the damaged trees.
OBSERVATIONS
It is understood that UDO 8.1 may not strictly apply, because the low density does not call for Resource Conservation Areas (RCA’s). I refer below to UDO 8.2, Landscaping…, and especially to the site plan that was approved by the Town Planning Commission and the Town Council. Please refer to the numbers on the attached site plan, to more easily follow along with the listing below.
Western Border
1. Grading was done before the property line was surveyed and flagged. I spoke with surveyor about the exact location of property line bordering the property. Mr. told me that the corner pipes were located, but the property lines were not marked. On the site plan, the Town’s instructions were to “Have your surveyor flag the property line adjacent to buffers and other protection areas, and flag the protection limits.” before grading.
Staff properly recognized the neighbor’s residential property as a protection area. Staff required protection limits to be fenced.
2. Developer removed the fencing along the Annunziata’s western border that was mandated, inspected and approved by Town staff. The protection area was then graded, removing and critically damaging the roots of the neighbor’s trees, including a landmark persimmon tree and a very large pine tree.. The area disturbed is approximately 13’ x 120’, or 1560 square feet.
Northern Border
3. Grading was done before any protection fencing was installed. Fill dirt was applied on an area 14’ x 75’, on the s northern border inside the fence location. Total area disturbed, over 1050 square feet. “Disturbing these areas may result in penalties as much as $20.00 for every square foot of encroachment up to a maximum penalty of $40,000.” UDO 8.2.3 C) 1) 1560 + 1050 = 2610 square feet x $20/square foot = $52,200.00. It seems that JVI could be fined the $40,000.00 maximum financial penalty that the Town of can levy for these violations.
4. The town required that the development’s main road be stopped short of the Annunziata property line. Instead, their excavation went right up to the line, pushing back the fence that divides the properties. It dug out soil four feet deep less than four feet away from a 22” diameter pine tree, causing it to become a hazard to fail For reference, see the information in UDO 8.1.3 D) 4), “Cutting more than 30% affects the health of the tree, and cutting over 40% affects the tree’s stability”2. We observed protruding roots of ten of the ’s tre’s torn off within their Critical Root Zone.
INVENTORY OF NEIGHBOR’S TREES WITH CRITICAL ROOT ZONE DAMAGE
Species Diameter” 4.5’ above grade Distance’ from trunk to cut
Quercus alba, White oak 8 7 TRESPASS--TOTALED
Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweetgum 14 12
Pinus taeda, Loblolly pine ** 22 ** ** 4 ** HAZARDOUS
Liquidambar, Sweetgum 6 4.5
Quercus alba, White oak 6 3.5
Liquidambar, Sweetgum 15 4
Quercus alba, White oak 7 5
Cornus florida, Flowering dogwood 6 3
Nyssa sylvatica, Tupelo 5 1
Quercus rubrum, Red oak 8 5
TOTAL: TEN TREES 97 Diameter Inches
5. On the first tree on the above list, the machinery trespassed by reaching over the line and tearing two primary branches off a white oak tree belonging entirely to the Annunziatas. Because the line was not marked, it is not clear whether the grading company is responsible for the trespass. The two branches comprised more than half of the tree’s total crown, so it could be considered a total loss. To date, no criminal complaint has been filed regarding this trespass.
6. The area to the east of the road is designated as a sewer easement, so staff did not require protection fencing there. Fill dirt was spread over the area. Nothing in the UDO was cited as a reason why this area did not receive any protection. Given the size of the easement, the line could be offset installed in a way that provides for the neighbor’s trees to be preserved.
“SAVE” TREES WITHIN
7. One dying white oak along Road is designated as a “save” tree on the site plan approved by the Town. The protection fence is only 5' away from this 28" dbh tree, and roots have been removed and damaged within 7' of the trunk. There are several sizeable dead branches in the crown and a severe infection on the same side of the trunk as the root damage. This “save” tree is dying due to the developer’s failure to follow the town’s tree preservation guidelines.
The UDO calls for inch-for-inch replacement for “save” trees that are not saved, so it seems that 28” of replacement trees could be planted if this one does not survive. s landscaper agreed to forward a plan to work on improving this tree’s chances, but this work has not commenced.
8. Another large white oak to the north has a tupelo tree right next to it. These trees are also designated “save” trees, but their fencing is also less than 5' away. They have lost roots from grading all around, even though they are also marked for protection on the Town's approved site plan. There is no evidence of care taken for their survival, so their future is uncertain.
9. Two oaks in the middle of the development were not designated on the site plan to be saved, but Mr. stated that he wanted to save them. The grading for the sidewalk tore up the roots of the largest one, so its survival is doubtful. I mention this out of due diligence because if it is left without any action taken to increase its stability, it may be a hazard to workers on the site and future homeowners. The smaller oak may survive, if steps are taken to protect it.
REACTIONS BY : The Town required to submit a tree management plan by a Certified Arborist, to mitigate the damage done after fences were removed. first submitted a plan drawn up by their uncertified landscaper. Then they resubmitted the same plan on the letterhead of an individual whose certification lapsed last year due to failure to keep up with his continuing education requirements. It was only after the neighbor checked these fraudulent credentials that complied with the Town’s instructions by finding an ISA Certified Arborist who would sign off on the plans.
SUMMARY
This is not a comprehensive accounting, but still it is not clear that has acted to follow the purposes set forth in the UDO, or comply with the regulations therein. The Town’s response to the in the months since they were notified of these problems has seemed to focus on finding ways that the UDO does not apply, instead of focusing on the UDO’s Purpose, “to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of the citizens and residents of and its…ETJ.”
Even if it is true that was not required to delineate RCA’s or to install plant buffers, I believe that should be held responsible for following the UDO and the plans that were agreed to and approved by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. I ask these bodies to make sure that the plans they approve are followed, so development in is not done at the expense of its natural resources, or its citizens’ rights.
This concludes my report. I would be glad to receive corrections of my analysis.