The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTree Removal Letter - OT General - 9/21/2015 E-1.1) MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us September 21, 2015 Kent Roberts 360 E Lakeshore Dr. Allyn, WA 98524 TO BE KEPT IN THE RE: Proposed Tree Removal PARCEL FILE Kent Roberts: NV C 2,Z2D. 5-2 , 6Ca�3 On September 14, 2015, you submitted to Mason County an arborist report from Hugh Doran (011ala WA.) regarding two red cedar trees on your property at 360 E Lakeshore Dr. No. Allyn (Parcel No. 12220-52-00003). The report examined the trees near the shoreline of Anderson Lake on your property in Lakeland Village and noted the location of the two red cedars as a group of trees in proximity of the shoreline and your residence. I understand the scope of the height and health of the two mature trees, the careful cutting and reduction in height of the red cedar trees close to the lake, and the improvement of safety to improvements on your property. You should consider planting two or three shrubs or trees for replacement of the ones removed in the immediate area of tree removal, and select native species (like red cedar, vine maple, Oregon ash, red huckleberry, twinberry, or indian plum) available at local plant nurseries. Note that the shrubs and trees should not obstruct views of the lake from neighboring properties; a small clusters rather than a straight alignment is the recommended action for replanting near the buffer of the lake. With this letter, you may proceed with your proposed danger tree removal on this parcel per Mason County Resource Ordinance standards, and the needed care from damage to existing improvements and adjacent upland vegetation. You may contact me for further information. Z k�e Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 West Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 (360) 275-4467 ext. 365 danger trees letters 2015+ 122205000039 122195000086 122205000152 , 1222050000402, _ r a- 122205200� �' 122205200011 122205000108 • r 11k •:A^ k _ 122205200002 Q„ �O Q� v - , �!x.R 4 122205400016 122200060010 122205200004 F M0U�TgiH V �Fw�R 122205200005 122205400017 122205400018 122205200007 =outce:E-- ri, D tale-lobe, GeoE=,ye. i-cubed. SDA USGS E�X. Get pping. r•grid. IGN. IGP swissdopo. and the G1S User Community N 1 inch = 50 feet W _ E 1 inch = 0 miles S SEP-14-2015 09: 16 FROM:LAKELAND VILLAGE 360 275 0266 TO:3604277799 P.2 14243 Olympic Dr.SE • Olalls,WA 98359-9494 253-857-5070 -Hui2bB. Isr%d atfiedA&ont&TrecRislcAssc o" P1-,�-on/#244 25 3 - 3o? To: Kcnt Roberts 360 E. Lakesht ,. Dr. Allyn, WA 98.1.2* �-�evt L ro Date: September 1142015 Project: Cedar Risk A& essment Site Location: 360) ;1 akeshore Dr., Allyn, WA Tree(s): 2 Western r0d edars Dear Kent, The following is a liniii i d tree evaluation of your two cedars, This report contains observations, field nolx::, conclusions and recommendations. Process follows Visual Trec Assessment(VTR;,) procedures as recognized and endorsed by the international Society of Arboricul4'i,lt. This is a standardized approach consisting of identifying structural defects and�4! it significance from visible signs and non-invasive methods. Additional criteria, fie)if procedures and definitions are available as an addendum to this report upon reque.i��. Conclusions and opinions are based on the state of each tree at the time of evaluati,ri Opinions and recommendations are based on normal lowland Puget Sound Mather and cover a one year period. This evaluation is limited to VTA procedures o94 and does not represent an exhaustive study of the two trees_ Summary Two Western red cedsx" were evaluated at the above noted property. The two trees, 18" and 30 " dbh (diaih-i,,tcr-at-breast-hc;ight), share a common base and are located on. the west side of the clOItt's property between the house and Lake Anderson. The trees appear in poor ho-:lth, have an open basal cavity and exhibit a thin shell wall of sound wood surround to a large decay column. It is recommended that the two trees be cut to an appropriafi stump height within the next 6 months to eliminate the risk posed to near-by peop)e id properties, Observations(8/19/1�►') The two subject trees del, Western red cedars (Thuja plicata), 18" and 30"dbh, approximate heights 60' nd 75' respectively; located 30' east of the lake and dock, 25' west of,the client's hot4��I and 37' from neighbor's housc to the south. The trees exhibit weak, sparse f0,14dge throughout their crowns; branching is asymmetrical with heavy limb loading on 416 south side of the 30" stem; the trunks show pitch flow from heavy feeding activity tt in sapsuckers. SEP-14-2015 09: 16 FROM:LAKELAND VILLAGE 360 275 0266 TO:3604277798 P.3 kenrRoberis Tree Rb&Assessmenj : Neprembee 11. 2015 Page«of 4 The trees share a bro4�,i,,' ommon base that has a large open cavity with advanced decay on the west sid�_`. resonance test with A mallet indicated a thin shell wall of sound wood surround`il; a large decay column in both stems. Risk Assessment/Moill (rating scale on pg 3) 18" dbh cedar Potenti-a( or Failure 3 Potentiitl' 'argets 4 Sipe t�.M.._? Risk Rp*Ing 9 30" dbh cedar ftentiifj7or Failure 3 potenti �,`': argets 4 Size-- w 3 Risk Rr ng 10 Conclusions and Rea' mendations The two cedars have hli risk ratings. They are in a state of decline with extensive decay columns in each`'11tein , As such, the trees will become increasingly more vulnerable to structure;};Ott em failure. With the close proximity to people, homes and landscaped property, it1i5 recommended that the trees be removed to an acceptable stump height within thw�'text 6 months. There is no guarantee of a "safety period" or precise time-line&a ,`Potential tree failure in this conclusion or recommendations. With the proximity to ,,tqx lake, it is suggested that reducing the trees to safe habitat siurq height (8' to l T) .bp considered. Please let me know if x4& a are any questions regarding the content of this report or.if additional information �eeded. Sincerely, G ugh B. Doran Hugh B_Doran,ISA Certilti Arborist SEP-14-2015 09: 16 FROM:LAKELAND VILLAGE 360 275 0266 T0:3604277798 P.4 Kent Roberts Tree Risk Assessmen4:'.;: September 11, 2013 Page 3of4 Risk Rating Scale Risk Assessment Rating Scale it based on the Tree Hazard Evaluation Guide,N. Matheny And J. Clary, 1994 ai.W the PNW-ISA Manual for Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urb 1 I,nterface, 2007 A. Potential for failuro .1; —low, 5—extreme B. Potential target in t vent of failure: 1 to 4 1 —Occasional use; 'i developed property, low occupancy within any one day 2 -intermittent use:,;:k,. people occupy the area less than 50%of the time span of any day, week or month e ,in rural streets, seasonal parks and trails, day-use parking 3 - Frequent use: silo!ndary development, e.g. people occupy the area more than 50% of the tir jw span of any day, week or month as in urban/suburban park/picnic use; udi,4 subw-ban street, intersections, entry/drive 4—Constant use:pir:apary structures, e.g. residential/commercial buildings and property; main strut:,, bus stops C. Size of primary treo"purt affected: 1 —.four inches diajip ter 2—four to twenty 1�t': es diameter t. 3 — twenty inches ' a neter and greater D. Risk rating=A + 3 to 5: Insignifican �minor risk issues 6 to 8: Moderate—'4i 11 defined issues, retain and monitor over next 1 to 10 years 9 to 11: Moderate Xir 1ligh risk abatement planning strongly advised accompanied by am`% x l monitoring with action taken within one to two years 12—Extreme—Imm}�ii.ike action required Reference Sources: Dunster, J.A. 2003, `+ s t X` Harris, R. 1992, Arboriculture Metheny,Nt,;',and Clark, J. (1998). Trees and Development Hugh B, Doran,ISA Certii Arborist SEP-14-2015 09: 17 FROM:LAKELAND VILLAGE 360 275 0266 TO:3604277798 P.5 e Kcn1 Roberm Tree RiskAssessmeni, . Seplemher 11, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1.. Any legal description p1lo, ided to the consultant/appraiscr is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships tq:ia,y property are assumed to be good and marketable.No responsibility is assumed' or matters legal in character. Any and.all property is appraised or evaluated as though and clear,under responsible ownership and competent management. 1 It is assumed that any pr;p.p rty is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances, statutes, or other govergx-i ntal regulations. 3. Care has been taken to:'x.Altain all information from reliable sources, All data has been verified insofar as possilil..- however,the consultant/appraiser can neither guaranty nor be responsible for the accu4�;. on information provided by others. 4. Unless stated otherwise: r information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and�Cw lccts the condition of those trees at the time of inspection;and B)the inspection is limij'izt Ito visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing or a ring,There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or defieier;e::i s of the subject trees may not arise in the future. 5, All trees possess the ri*,jjf failure, Trees can fail at any time, with or without obvious defects, and with or witl oti,t applied stress. A complete evaluation of the potential for this requires pneumatic(air) ;Y6avation and examination of the critical root zone(min. radius of 6')of subject trees any,' i iay require advanced internal trunk structure analysis. Such procedures exceed the s e and limits of this report. See#4—B, 6, Other trees with defects pz ' qIuestionable conditions are standing in the neighborhood and have been for some time.,f Cannot predict nor guarantee their stability or failure, 7. The con sultant/appraiserAlalI not be required to give trstimuny or to attend court or related hearings by reasoh ��f this rcport unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including paymerid�'f an additional fee for such services, S. Loss or alteration of any of this report invalidates the entire report. 9. Possession of this report ;.a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any othel,t) an the person.to whom it is addressed,without prior expressed written or verl pal consent of the consultant/appraiser. City, county and state governments are exempt! 10, Neither all nor any part(tCl a contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the��l lent, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or media,withoutjf;,prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser—p4l�t. ularly as to the value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser,or zi_n' reference to any professional society of institute or any initialed designation conk'. ed upon the consultant:/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. City, cout) A nd state governments are exempt, Hugh S. Doran,ISA Cert c. Arborist SEP-14-2015 09: 16 FROM:LAKELAND UILLAGE 360 275 0266 TO:3604277798 P. 1 Company: _4)son County Planning Department .__......_.................... _ .. _..................................-.-..._.__._._...._.__._._.....__......._....._................................._..,.,.. - --- --- Attention: 1 U na Borden Fax number: U0-427-7798 --....................................................................... .From: Kent Roberts _....__._...------._......._............_.__.._ .............................- --------- -Fax number: 3i 0-275-0266 Date: $ ptember 14, 2015 Regarding: Danger Trees at 360 E. Lakeshore Drive Pages: Comments: Please email your response to kent[robe rtsocomcast,net