Staff recommends approval of variance at 1160 Victoria Street after plan revisions; neighbors raise specimen‑tree concerns

Unidentified Speaker 3, a planning staff member, told the work session that the applicant for 1160 Victoria Street originally sought two variances — raising maximum impervious coverage from 35% to 44.96% to construct a covered deck, and reducing a side‑yard setback — but revised plans removed the need for the setback reduction. “This is a variance at 1160 Victoria Street. They originally requested 2 variances,” Speaker 3 said, explaining that the initial plan showed encroachment into a specimen tree’s structural root plate and that staff asked the applicant to revise the plan to avoid removing the tree.

Why it matters: the property is undersized for the zoning district (about 6,000 sq ft versus a 10,000 sq ft requirement cited by staff), so the variance petition is central to allowing the proposed building configuration. Staff recommended approval of the remaining variance with conditions tied to stormwater and compliance with applicable ordinances.

What staff presented: Speaker 3 said the revised plan no longer requires the side‑setback reduction. Staff emphasized the lot’s small size and referenced thresholds relevant to impervious coverage. The file includes a specimen tree that staff initially flagged as at risk; Speaker 3 said they would not allow removal if the tree were healthy and suggested the applicant changed the plan to protect it. In separate comments, Speaker 2 and others described site history: the parcel was formerly a parking area, has multiple easements and existing stormwater infrastructure, and previous proposals for townhomes or other development had been considered.

Tree and buffer concerns: speakers disagreed about how much disturbance the revised work would cause near a stream or buffer and whether the applicant could complete the project without violating buffer rules. Speaker 6 described state enforcement practice for stream buffers and said encroachment typically requires reestablishment and remediation; if a structure encroaches into the 25‑foot buffer, it may have to be removed before a state variance is considered. "If they encroach with any type of structure in that 25 foot buffer ... They have to rip out that retaining wall, reestablish the buffer ... before they're even eligible to apply for a variance with the state," Speaker 6 said.

Neighbors and entitlements: several speakers and attendees said many neighbors learned about the development only through the variance process and expressed frustration. Some argued that the property’s preexisting entitlement limits options for blocking development, while others urged stricter enforcement of tree protections or design changes such as lowering building height by a few feet to reduce visual impact.

Unresolved details and next steps: the work session did not include a vote. Participants discussed logistics for the public hearing — staff referenced a required hearing period (described as the '20 minute hearing' during the meeting) and room capacity — and asked for any outstanding information to be submitted before the hearing. No hearing date or formal motion to approve or deny was recorded in the work session transcript; staff said they would follow up with revised materials and further review of stream/buffer impacts if necessary.

The planning staff recommendation and the concerns raised about specimen‑tree protection and buffer enforcement are expected to be revisited at the public hearing, where members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and the board will consider a formal action.