Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor appeal pauses decision on 56 Shingle House Road tree-removal plan; board asks for revised planting plan
Summary
The Environmental Review Board heard an appeal over removal of 30 trees for a proposed house at 56 Shingle House Road. The town's formula requires 81 replacement trees; the applicant offered a planting plan of 26 new trees plus a contribution to the town tree bank for the deficit. The board agreed to have the parties revise and return in September because there is no August meeting.
The Town of New Castle Environmental Review Board heard an appeal of a tree-removal permit for 56 Shingle House Road and agreed to delay a final decision so the applicant and an affected neighbor can refine a planting plan.
Staff reported that the property—formerly a residence with an old pool and paved areas—will be redeveloped with a new house. Dennis, the town staff member presenting the item, said his field review identified 30 trees slated for removal; under the town's replacement formula that yields a requirement for 81 replacement trees.
Dennis explained how the code limits credit without a detailed landscape plan. "Because the way the code is written, I told the applicants that's fine, but I can only give you credit for 10 of those trees," he said, noting the town requires a mix of canopy and understory trees and limits how many can be the same genera.
Andrew Vaccarello, consulting engineer for owners Marcel and Helen Bau, presented a draft planting plan intended to address neighborhood screening. He said the plan includes 14 Norway spruces, 9 arborvitae and 3 American holly (26 trees shown on the plan) staggered to create visual density. "It is the intention of the applicant to make up the deficit with contributions to the tree fund," Vaccarello said, adding the site has shallow rock and steep slopes that present planting challenges. He also noted proposed planting stock at about 4 feet in height and that the species chosen commonly reach 30–40 feet and can grow roughly 2 feet per year.
The adjacent neighbor who filed the appeal said the proposed house at the top of the hill "would really change the character of our backyard" and asked for time to review the planting plan with an arborist. The neighbor said the initial plan omitted screening on the west side adjacent to their property and requested more information on mature heights and species suitability.
Board members and staff discussed options: require a landscape plan that meets the ordinance's canopy/understory mix, accept more on-site plantings if viable, or accept a contribution to the town tree bank for the deficit. Staff reminded the board of a bonding requirement of 35% of planting costs held for five years to ensure long-term survival of plantings.
Because the board does not meet in August and the owners have indicated a desire to start work as early as September, members proposed tabling the decision to allow the applicant and neighbor to continue discussions and produce a revised plan. The applicant agreed to share updated plans with Dennis and the neighbor and to return to the board in September if no resolution is reached sooner.
The issues remain unresolved: the board did not make a final determination on whether the proposed plantings will count toward the 81-tree requirement or whether the applicant must contribute to the town's tree bank. The board directed the applicant to coordinate with Dennis and return with a revised landscape and planting plan for further consideration.
