Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA asks for more evidence before granting pool variance at 180 High Street to protect large beech tree
Summary
Owners Jason and Jody Field sought a variance to build an in‑ground pool within the front yard setback to avoid removing a prominent beech tree. The board praised the tree‑saving intent but voted to continue to May 26 and asked for a more detailed alternatives analysis, precise arborist data, and explicit schematics showing why rotation or a smaller pool are infeasible.
Homeowners Jason and Jody Field asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for a front‑yard variance to install a roughly 14‑by‑28‑foot inground pool 6.2 feet from Winter Street, citing a large, mature beech tree that they and their arborist said constrains by‑right siting.
Attorney Lisa Me described the site constraints and presented an arborist report that warned of potential root cutting and root‑zone damage if the pool were located in the by‑right position. The applicant proposed a screened, terraced solution with permeable patio and retaining walls to minimize visual and root impacts.
Board members asked detailed technical questions. The arborist told the board that any pool installation in the constrained root zone would “likely require cutting roots 2 feet or more in diameter,” and that careful construction and arborist oversight would be needed if any encroachment occurred. Several board members pressed the applicant to show a rotated plan, a smaller footprint or alternative placement closer to the driveway that might avoid the root crown.
The board concluded it had sympathy for preserving the tree but needed more rigorous evidence to meet the variance hardship standard. The board voted to continue the application to May 26, 2026, and asked the applicant to document: a) engineering or grading constraints that prevent rotating the pool, b) scaled plans comparing rotated/smaller options, and c) a detailed arborist plan with root‑impact mapping and construction protections.
The applicants said they had reviewed multiple layouts over the last year and insisted the proposed location best preserves the tree while allowing a usable pool; the board requested more granular evidence before it could make the requisite findings.
