Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues 43 Union Street addition after tree, drainage and parking concerns
Summary
The board continued the hearing on application 2025-0011 for an upward addition at 43 Union Street after the Tree Advisory Committee, neighbors and the board raised concerns about potential long-term damage to an adjacent elm, drainage changes, and an unpermitted parking/driveway shown on HDC plans.
Attorney Arthur Reed represented applicant Whitney M. Matthews on a request to add an upper story within the existing footprint at 43 Union Street (application 2025-0011). Reed said the project would avoid exterior storage and keep construction waste off site, and proposed construction fencing and in-house storage.
The Tree Advisory Committee raised extensive concerns about the nearby elm tree and potential long-term root damage if the side steps are removed or if a curb cut/parking area is later installed. Dave Schampoo, chair of the Tree Advisory Committee, told the board the roots extend under existing steps and the canopy’s drip line reaches roughly 70 feet; committee members said removing the steps or creating an off-street parking space could cause irreparable harm that may not manifest for years.
Neighbors described repeated, long-running worry about drainage, erosion and the character of back additions on Union Street. Mary Ellen Peters (45 Union) and Liz Coffin (47 Union) said the neighborhood depends on existing low rear additions for light, airflow and drainage from the embankment; they asked the board to deny or require major redesign. Several neighbors and a Tree Advisory Committee member requested retaining the existing side stairs and applying construction protections (fencing, restricted storage) to reduce risk to tree roots. One committee member said flat pavers or retaining for a new parking spot would require excavation that would harm roots.
Board members and staff clarified that the application did not request relief for a curb cut or parking; any curb-cut or public-rights work would need separate review by DPW, the Historical District Commission and possibly planning. The board requested drainage calculations and more detail on construction protections. Attorney Reed said the applicant agreed with most suggested construction conditions but objected to a proposed certificate-of-occupancy hold tied to post-construction tree-signoff, calling that within the building commissioner’s jurisdiction.
Given unresolved concerns about the stairs, long-term tree health, and drainage, the applicant requested a continuance. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to the May 8 meeting to allow the applicant to supply drainage mitigation information and to discuss alternatives that would avoid moving the stairs and that would not show a curb-cut or parking area on revised plans.
The Tree Advisory Committee said it will monitor construction if the project proceeds but prefers the project be resubmitted with the stairs kept in place and tree protections in writing.
