Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighthouse Drive Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission allows removal of one specimen tree, denies another, at 5000 Lighthouse Drive
Summary
For the proposed residential development at 5000 Lighthouse Drive, the commission approved removal of a 22-inch post oak (tree 8975) and denied removal of the larger 32-inch post oak (tree 8982). The developer said multiple design iterations sought to preserve trees while meeting the owner’s program needs.
The Environmental Conservation Commission on April 1 approved removal of one specimen tree and denied removal of another on a 2.9-acre lot at 5000 Lighthouse Drive, a site proposed for a single-family residence and ancillary uses.
The staff presentation identified seven specimen trees on the lot and said the applicant requested removal of two specimen trees because of the proposed single-family dwelling footprint, a covered sports pavilion and associated parking. Staff reported net credits of 25 mitigation credits if both specimen trees were removed, based on the submitted arborist and tree-survey calculations.
During public presentation, developer Aaron Jones of Lewis and Early Custom Homes described multiple design iterations. “We’ve gone back with the architect 4 or 5 times now to position the house and the layout of all the different structures and parking. And this was the the best way we could do it to mitigate the least amount of tree removal,” Jones said.
Staff and the town arborist identified the two specimen trees as Tree 8975 (a 22-inch post oak, described as fair health with an old wound and some limb breakage) and Tree 8982 (a 32-inch post oak, the largest on the lot). After discussion about alternatives for parking placement and septic system configurations, a motion to allow removal of Tree 8975 and to deny removal of Tree 8982 passed. The motion was recorded in the minutes as approving removal of tree 8975 and denying removal of tree 8982; commissioners voted aye.
The applicant noted potential options to further refine the design to save additional non-specimen trees and offered to consider additional mitigation plantings. Staff also explained septic disposal-field setbacks and system-type constraints that limit placement alternatives for septic systems on the lot, which in turn affect tree preservation options.
The commission’s decision preserves the larger specimen tree on the lot and permits removal of the smaller specimen tree as recommended by staff and supported by the applicant’s revised design.
