Summerville board approves removal of red oak at 412 Country Club Boulevard; site plan approval contingent on tree-protection measures

The Summerville Tree Protection Board voted to approve removal of a large red oak at 412 Country Club Boulevard and to approve the remainder of the applicant’s site plan provided required tree‑protection measures are installed and inspected.

The vote followed a technical review of grading and tree‑impact drawings and questions from board members about how fill and retaining walls would affect the tree’s root zone and surrounding soil. The board’s motion approved removal of the red oak and approved the remainder of the plan “contingent upon the accurate execution of the tree protection efforts,” with a later tree‑protection inspection required before a pool permit would be approved.

Board members asked why the applicant proposed to grade the site by spreading fill rather than removing soil and whether that approach would threaten nearby trees. An applicant representative said the plan uses on‑site fill to create a flattened area “off the end of the pool” intended to support future structures such as a pool house. The applicant provided an updated plan to town staff showing that the nearest tree would be about 11 feet from the edge of the proposed barrier.

Justin, a town staff member responsible for permits, told the board that the pool permit had not yet been approved and that approval would be contingent on tree protection. “The pool permit would be contingent on tree protection. So there would be a tree protection inspection before the pool permit was submitted or approved,” Justin said.

Board members sought detail about temporary erosion controls and the longer‑term solution for holding the regraded soil in place after silt fencing is removed. The applicant said silt fencing would be installed before construction and later replaced by a permanent retaining wall where shown on the plan. The board noted the retaining wall as the primary control to prevent soil movement near the most impacted tree.

After discussion the board approved the removal and the plan with the expressed condition that tree‑protection measures be installed and inspected. A board member moved the motion and another seconded; members voted orally in favor. The transcript records the motion as passing with no recorded opposing votes.

The board also referenced an earlier staff‑level approval of a separate 26‑inch pine noted in the file; board members said that tree had structural issues and had been reviewed previously. The board did not set a public mitigation requirement in the transcript beyond the condition on tree protection and inspection.