Opinion ID: 2068368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tree Protection

Text: A tree arborist, Lew Bloch, inspected and rated the health of 64 trees on the Chain Bridge Road project site in 2002. In his July 20, 2002 report to Dorchester, he recommended that a tree with less than a 50% rating should be removed; the ratings ranged from 30% to 85%. Mr. Bloch submitted a tree and slope protection plan on September 1, 2004. The Urban Forestry Administration of the District's Department of Transportation (UFA/DOT) reviewed Mr. Bloch's submission and recommended that his health assessment and recommendation be accepted, and that Dorchester provide additional specific protection measures. During the April 11, 2006 hearing, Stan Andrulis, architect for the Dorchester project, revealed changes made in response to UFA's concerns. In addition, Tom Bonifant of Bonifant Tree Service, Inc. sent a June 26, 2006 tree preservation plan for the project site to the BZA. An official of the UFA/DOT, Earl Eutsler, declared at the July 18, 2006 hearing that certain elements of [Dorchester's] proposal do not meet the threshold of credibility required, in [his] view, to be granted a special exception. Specifically he addressed the interaction between the tree protection plan and the storm water management system, asserting that Mr. Bonifant's report nowhere describes how his [June 26, 2006] Tree Pr[eserva]tion Plan will manage the threat posed by the installation of storm water management devices next to and directly under several protected trees[,] particularly trees numbered 32 through 34, 36 and 37 and 48 through 53. In Mr. Eutsler's opinion, the integration of the storm water management system has not been thoroughly explored or satisfactorily explained. He expressed concern for old and mature beech trees[,] ... [a] species ... known for its general intolerance to disturbance and alteration, both to it and its surroundings[,] and a tree which contribute[s] mightily to the park-like character of the neighborhood. He stressed the lack of pre-construction tree preparation: [N]ot a single preconstruction preservation technique has been employed, much less proposed by any of the arborists involved with the project. Furthermore, Mr. Eutsler did not believe that the tree preservation plan could satisfy the overlay and the adverse impact question. [4] Mr. Bonifant addressed Mr. Eutsler's concerns during the September 19, 2006 hearing. According to him, [a]ll of the experts have agreed that tree roots are very shallow[;] [t]hey're within the first 12, 16 inches of soil. The disturbance is below that zone and [a] tunnel at three feet to six feet will have no impact on ... any tree. He discounted any negative impact on the beech trees, maintained that the disturbance to those critical root zones on those trees is well within acceptable limits[,] and that planned pruning would help to preserve the trees. He pointed out that a severely construction-damaged beech tree in Takoma Park, on which Bonifant Tree Service has worked for many years, remains alive today. However, Edward Milhous, a consulting arborist, testifying for the CB/UT Committee, pointed out that some jurisdictions... use the 18 inch critical root criteri[on], and related his experience in excavating an American Beech tree which had roots extending twenty feet from the base of the tree. He predicted that under Dorchester's proposed tree preservation plan, the vast majority of the[ ] trees are going to be gone within a few years of completion. Mr. Eutsler returned for the October 31, 2006 hearing and once again criticized Dorchester's tree preservation plan as not in compliance with the CB/UT overlay regulations: The Chain Bridge Road/University Terrace Tree and Slope Overlay District Regulations have been established to preserve and enhance the park-like setting of the area and place strict limitations on several aspects of any proposed development. Chief among these being tree protection. The regulations not only spell out the number of trees in various size classes that may be removed to accommodate the project, but also demand the preservation of existing mature trees on the site. [Dorchester's] application is in clear violation of the former and has not credibly satisfied the latter. Mr. Eutsler questioned both the expertise of Dorchester's expert and the techniques proposed. Dorchester's counsel subjected Mr. Eutsler to rigorous cross-examination, and members of the BZA also posed pointed, technical questions to him. Moreover, the Board asked Mr. Bonifant about his qualifications and experience. Mr. Bonifant, who was licensed in the State of Maryland as a tree expert, acknowledged that he was not certified by the ISA [International Society of Arboriculture], and that the Dorchester project is probably the largest with which he has been involved. In response to a BZA question, Mr. Milhous summarized his position of skepticism about Dorchester's proposed tree preservation plans: [I]n theory if you could apply all these various techniques and materials to a site, ... it would have a beneficial effect on tree preservation. My problem, as an arborist, is that having worked on over 600 projects, I have never seen these techniques used. So when somebody says he is going to come in and apply all these theoretical techniques on a site, I got to look back and say I just don't see it happening personally.