|
The
Tree Commission Meeting for the City of New Castle took place on
December 7, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town
Hall.
Members
Present: Chip Patterson, Chairperson
Susan Keyser,
Co-Chairperson
Erv Thatcher
Nancy Coning
Tom
Truman
Fran Peden
Mark Miller
The
meeting was called to order by Mr. Patterson at 5:35 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
Approval
of Minutes – Meeting
minutes for 10/5/09, 10/22/09 Special Tree Commission Meeting, and
11/2/09 are under consideration for approval this evening. Mr.
Patterson incorporated some changes to the 10/22/09 meeting minutes
and has distributed a revised version to Commission members. There
was discussion about the content of the minutes for the 11/2/09. Ms.
Keyser believes that key points were not included in those minutes.
Ms. Keyser made a motion
to adopt the minutes of the 10/5/09 and the amended 10/22/09 meeting
minutes. Mr. Miller seconded the motion which was approved by
unanimous vote.
New
Business – Mr.
Patterson introduced Pat Poore owner of the American Tree Company.
Mr. Rizzardi made two recommendations to the City. American Tree
Company was one of those companies. Mr. Poore provided a background
of his company and services. He emphasized safety and clean up as
important parts of his work. He uses a 65’ bucket truck that
should accommodate the City’s needs. Mr. Poore answered
questions from Commission members. He will inoculate trees if he
believes it is worth saving, but feels that if it gets to this point
the tree is usually not worth saving. There are a number of American
elm trees in the City that are prone to carpenter ants. He does not
drill these trees unless it is necessary. He is unfamiliar with Dr.
Gilmore (from FL) and his techniques but he is willing to look at
materials provided to him. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Poore to address
his timeframe for handling any matters the City calls him about. He
responded that the time of year has an impact but the City would be a
priority other than an emergency situation. Mr. Patterson
reiterated that responsiveness is very important to the Tree
Commission. Mr. Poore is licensed and insured. An issue concerning
bonding has been brought up by the City administration. Mr. Poore
said that bonding typically is for work that is done inside
structures and is not required for his line of work. If it is
required he would need to be informed. Mr. Patterson will look into
clarification on bonding.
Members
Report
Erv Thatcher –
Questioned the status of any work done on trees noted at the last
meeting. Mr. Patterson informed that no work had occurred since the
last meeting. (Further
discussion followed.) Mr.
Patterson reminded Commission members that Tree, Inc. was verbally
awarded the work listed at the last meeting but they have also been
questioned by the City about bonding. No work has been done to date.
Ms. Keyser questioned trimming work that has been done on the
Sycamore Street branch that is close to a dormer window. It is
unknown who performed this trimming work.
Ms.
Keyser made a motion to contact Tree, Inc. to see if they can start
work this week, if not, then we need to move to another contractor.
Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous
vote.
Fran
Peden – Nothing to report.
Nancy Coning – Nothing to
report.
Susan Keyser –
She reaffirmed that we have a tree ordinance that must be followed
and Commission members are committed to following that ordinance.
Mr. Patterson reported that John Lloyd has been appointed to the Tree
Commission by the Mayor. The Trustees have not nominated a
representative to date. He will follow up with the Trustees. In the
absence of a group’s appointment to this body, the ordinance
provides that Council can appoint someone. (He
noted other items in the ordinance that must be addressed in order to
make the ordinance as effective as possible.)
Tree
Planting – All trees were planted except for two (2) because
there were no trees available that met our specifications. Ms.
Keyser spoke to Bob Rizzardi and asked him to plant the other two (2)
trees in the Spring (2010). Mr. Rizzardi has removed the outstanding
trees from the billing. She has four (4) trees on the current tree
list and will accept more.
Mr. Patterson said that if we are
happy with Mr. Rizzardi being our planting source, maybe we can draw
away from the Fall and Spring planting and plant throughout the year
in suitable conditions but in lesser groups. He is not sure if this
is a more economical method or not. (Discussion
followed.)
Tom Truman –
Nothing to report.
Mark Miller – As a point of inquiry, four
(4) large trees that the Tree Commission planted at the library are
gone because of construction at the library. He asked if trees would
be replanted. Mr. Patterson said the library had been in contact
with him to inform that no new trees would be planted. The trees
were located on private property.
Chairman’s
Report
Mr. Patterson
spoke of a swamp maple tree located on Baldt Avenue on a paper
street. The tree is a volunteer and the property owner had inquired
whether the Tree Commission would remove the tree and plant a Zelkova
in its place. We declined to take any action on the tree. He then
asked if the Tree Commission would plant a Zelkova if he removed the
swamp maple tree. Mr. Patterson placed the matter on the agenda for
discussion. Mr. Miller asked why he is asking for removal and why is
he asking for a Zelkova. The tree is believed to have been struck by
lightening and is also near a driveway and vehicles may have had
contact with branches. Commission members would like to know the
reasoning for the property owner’s request before any action is
taken. They request justification for the swamp maple’s
removal.
Three
(3) contributions totaling about $100 have been received to help
offset expenses associated with the cabling and pruning of the
catalpa tree on Second Street. Mr. Patterson will request an article
be placed in the Town Crier again to generate more interest.
Mr.
Patterson recused himself as Chairperson and turned the meeting over
to Ms. Susan Keyser to address the next matter on the agenda.
Old
Business
Remediation
Plan for 3rd
and South Street Property –
Mr. Bayard Marin, counsel for John Wheeler and Katherine Klyce, said
the remediation plan should be determined as a public matter. He
noted that the side of the hill where the trees were located must be
addressed. At the last hearing it was determined that prior to the
next meeting we should have a plan for review. This plan was not
submitted. Rather, we have correspondence from Mrs. Marini informing
they will pay $1,500 to the City representing payment for the three
(3) trees that were removed in the right-of-way. This is not the
remediation plan contemplated by the Code. This body has a
responsibility to ensure a plan is submitted and discussed. His
clients have a right to seeing that the plan is visually appeasing.
The property owner should be made to submit the plan that was
requested and allow it to be reviewed by the neighbors. (Mr.
Marin received a copy of the property owner’s correspondence at
this meeting.)
Ms.
Keyser said the Tree Commission was very clear and reasonable about
wanting a plan that addressed grades, elevation, bank, location for
the trees, establishment of the trees and more. We did not say the
neighbors had a right to review the plan and provide their input, we
said we thought it was the right thing to do. In her opinion what
has been presented is not acceptable. At the last meeting counsel
for the Marini’s did not disagree with our request for a plan.
Mr.
Truman does not believe a basic plan is difficult to produce. The
plan does not need to be professionally prepared and believes this
fact was conveyed in last month’s meeting.
Mrs.
Coning added that this body did not approve full-drawn plans but
believes the Marini’s think the Tree Commission is expecting
something extensive. Ms. Keyser reiterated that this body did not
ask for professional plans.
Mr.
Marin agreed that what was asked for last month was clear. He stated
his clients have a right to public participation and this body has
the ultimate decision of what the remediation plan looks like. He
noted the Marini’s had numerous professionals designing their
structure that could have produced what was being requested.
Ms.
Keyser said that if there are plans for the final grading then we
would like to see them. The plan calls for re-establishment of the
trees that were removed. The plan should include where they plan to
replant the trees and maintain them. What has been done is the
Marini’s have tried to put the matter back on us.
Mr.
Miller asked if we could write a letter to the Marini’s. Ms.
Keyser does not understand how the Marini’s feel the offer of
$1,500 satisfies what the Tree Commission requested at the 11/2/09
meeting. They should look at the tree ordinance and read what it
says and then do the work. She finds their lack of attention to the
Tree Commission’s request insulting. Perhaps we should have
Mr. Akin write the Marini’s a letter informing that what was
submitted is not satisfactory and that we need a remediation plan in
time for our next meeting. She further commented that if they don’t
want to do what they agreed to do, then perhaps we should consider
recommending to the City that a stop action order be considered. Mr.
Truman noted that the Tree Commission did not ask for money.
Ms.
Keyser made a motion to request that the City Solicitor explain to
the Marini’s that what was presented to the Tree Commission
does not meet the requirements that were set forth and that the
remediation plan be presented by 1/4/2010. Mr. Miller seconded the
motion.
Mr.
Patterson suggested including the 11/2/09 Tree Commission minutes
with the letter. They are not official minutes but can be used as a
guideline. Ms. Keyser again noted she does not believe the minutes
contain all pertinent information. We need a plan that shows what we
want and the minutes do not address clearly what we want. The plan
was to include location, how the land would be graded, what trees
would be planted, maintenance of the trees. Mr. Marin suggested
going back to the tape recording to clarify what was being requested
at the 11/2/09 meeting. Ms. Keyser added that if the Marini’s
have questions about what we have requested they should come to us
directly and not other City officials.
Mr.
Patterson asked Ms. Keyser where the minutes are deficient. She
noted that she didn’t recall reading establishment of trees,
grading, and location as part of the minutes. (This
text does appear on p. 9 of the minutes.)
Mr. Patterson again asked what was missing. Ms. Keyser didn’t
remember reading about a schedule or the plan to re-establish the
trees. Mrs. Coning didn’t recall discussing a schedule but
Ms. Keyser said it was addressed. Mr. Patterson read the motion
made by Ms. Keyser and subsequent text that appears on p.
9. Mr. Patterson then said if that language is deficient we should
redefine the minutes to say what occurred.
Mr.
Marin said the record speaks for itself. His recollection is that
there was more being required than what was stated. What was stated
is not inaccurate. When a plan is submitted it is a design, open to
discussion, input from the public and participants and the Board
comes up with a mitigation plan. A good plan likely has
contributions from all parties. There are just a few things that are
omitted.
Mr.
Patterson inquired about what items Mr. Marin believes were not
included in the minutes. He stated that there was mention of the
bank and grading that should have been included in the minutes. Even
if it weren’t specifically mentioned it is still a subject
because how would you plant trees at a location unless you knew how
high they would be off the ground and street level, type of trees and
whether or not the bank can sustain trees. These are important areas
for the Tree Commission to address. Ms. Keyser added that this body
has no idea if there is going to be a sidewalk, dimensions of the
sidewalk, if the bank will be sloped or if a wall is being installed.
Mr. Marin noted this is why part of the Code says if trees have to
be removed there must be a mitigation plan in place. There is no
reason why a developer can’t provide an idea of what is going
to be there.
Ms.
Keyser said the ordinance actually requires the mitigation plan be
submitted as part of the permit process. It is not unreasonable to
ask for the mitigation plan.
The
Tree Commission will request that a letter be sent from the City
Solicitor to the Marini’s stating we do not believe what has
been submitted satisfies our request for a mitigation plan. Mr.
Miller suggested attaching the (unofficial) minutes of the 11/2/09
meeting that Mr. Patterson just read aloud as well as adding a note
that the plan needs to include the information necessary to give a
sense of a remediation plan (re-establish the trees, specify grading,
specify location where the trees will be planted, we need to be
satisfied the trees will grow and prosper).
Lastly,
Mr. Patterson suggested that Mr. Akin inform the Marini’s that
they can obtain a copy of the tape recording from the 11/2/09 meeting
by contacting the City.
Adjournment
A
motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was
approved and the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Debbie
Turner
Stenographer
**Erv
Thatcher departed the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
|
