Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DPW denial for tree removal at 291 Page Street after split vote
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 3–2 on a motion to overturn DPW’s denial of a tree-removal permit at 291 Page Street, but four votes are required to overturn a departmental action under the charter; the denial therefore was upheld. DPW recommended pruning and replacement options; the appellant argued the tree presented safety and livability problems.
The Board of Appeals upheld the Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry’s denial of a private-property tree-removal permit at 291 Page Street after a 3–2 vote failed to meet the four-vote threshold needed to overturn a department decision.
Carla Short, urban forester with the Bureau of Urban Forestry, told the board the department inspected the Chinese elm and, while it had girdling and dense canopy, it was not "hazardous" as asserted by the appellant and could be managed through pruning. "I would argue that the arborist report also does not suggest the tree is hazardous," Short said, noting the department relies on certified arborists and applies the city's urban forestry ordinance.
The appellant's team, represented by architect Jace Levinson and homeowner Eric Grossman, submitted an arborist report recommending removal and replacement. Levinson said the tree was "out of scale and compromises" the owner's light and safety, and proposed planting three 36-inch-box trees as compensation. Grossman described recurring problems he said the tree contributes to: "We find probably a couple times a month glass bottles, the occasional syringe," and said the tree's scale makes the front of his house dark.
Short and DPW staff recommended pruning to thin the canopy, limit water sprouts and address safety concerns rather than removal. She also noted that some species proposed by the appellant were not on DPW's approved tree list and emphasized the higher long-term environmental value of mature trees.
During deliberations commissioners weighed the city's canopy and preservation policy against the property owner's concerns and costs of maintenance. A compromise motion from the dais would have overturned DPW and granted removal with conditions: plant one 36-inch-box replacement on-site, gift two 36-inch-box trees to DPW (maintenance obligations to be borne by the appellant), and have species selected by DPW. The motion received a 3–2 split, but the charter requires four votes to overturn a department action, so the original denial was sustained.
The board's decision leaves the DPW denial in place; the appellant may pursue further available administrative remedies as provided under city procedures.
