Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance after unpermitted removal of large maple at 0 Sturtevant Avenue
Summary
The Community Development Board denied a request to reduce tree‑mitigation after staff said a multi‑trunk red maple was measured at 38 inches DBH and an after‑the‑fact permit would trigger double mitigation, producing a 152‑inch obligation; the applicant said the small parcel cannot support full mitigation.
The Community Development Board denied a variance request tied to the unpermitted removal of a large maple tree at 0 Sturtevant Avenue, concluding that the relief sought was not justified under the city’s tree code.
Kevin Oster, city planner, told the board the property owner had submitted an after‑the‑fact permit following removal of a multi‑trunk red maple. "The actual assessment of the tree was 38 inches DBH," Oster said, noting staff relied on a 2022 street survey that measured the tree as a combined multi‑trunk DBH. Under the code, removal of a regulated tree over 8 inches DBH on a developed lot triggers mitigation; because the tree was removed without a permit, Oster said the mitigation requirement is doubled to 152 inches.
The applicant, who identified himself as Zane Jasrawi, acknowledged the city’s mitigation requirement but said the 0.115‑acre parcel is paved and constrained by three water meters, an electric utility box and overhead lines. "We fully acknowledge the city's requirement of the 152 inches of tree mitigation," he said, adding the site can safely support only about 30 inches of maritime species on‑site and asking for a reduced payment or credit in recognition of the parcel’s physical limits.
Board members asked whether the applicant had appealed staff’s DBH finding; Oster said the owner had appealed to the Environmental Stewardship Committee and the appeal was denied. The board also discussed planting options, including planting within the right‑of‑way with city approval or paying into the tree fund as an alternative.
A motion to deny the variance was moved and seconded and the board voted to deny the request by voice vote. No formal lesser variance was adopted for this case at the hearing.
What’s next: the denial ends the board’s consideration of the variance; further enforcement or payment options will be managed by city code enforcement per existing procedures.
