An applicant seeking a modification to a prior subdivision approval asked the Planning Board Aug. 6 to remove a condition that had required tree protection fencing at the drip line of a mature maple tree on the lot at 329 Front Street.

The condition, included in the original notice of decision, said plans “shall designate a tree protection fencing at the drip line of the existing mature maple tree and a note added to the plan that any new foundation shall not encroach this protection area prior to submitting final plan.” The applicant told the board the tree’s canopy straddles the north lot line and that locating a building envelope that preserves the entire drip line would remove a substantial portion of the buildable area.

The applicant said no immediate construction is planned; the owner is awaiting a possible zoning ordinance change that may re-zone the site for multifamily uses. The applicant asked that the protection condition be removed so future redevelopment is not automatically constrained by a foundation restriction. Board members suggested alternatives: (1) replacing the condition with a requirement to consult an arborist before development, (2) requiring a replacement tree if the mature tree must be removed, or (3) retaining the protection but allowing administrative confirmation during building permit review.

One board member said preserving the mature tree “is a nice thing for the general area,” while the applicant noted potential easement and abutter permission issues because some limbs cross the lot line. The applicant agreed to work with staff on possibly rewording the condition and noted that a recorded subdivision plan vests the plan for a limited time and that enforcement would rely on building-permit review.

Why it matters: The case shows how a single mature tree can constrain buildable area on small lots and how planning conditions interact with future building permits; the board discussed trade-offs between preservation and redevelopment rights.

Next steps: The public hearing was closed; the board will make a decision at its Aug. 21 business meeting after staff and the applicant refine proposed language (possible arborist review requirement or replacement-tree alternative).