Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves variances to let homeowners build closer to historic oak, with a lifelong tree-protection condition
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board approved four variances at 516 South Peninsula Avenue to allow a new house, pool and shortened driveway that preserve a large oak tree; approvals included conditions requiring construction protections and an explicit condition to keep the tree unless it is lost to natural causes.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Aug. 5 approved four separate variances that will let homeowners build a new single-family house and pool at 516 South Peninsula Avenue while maintaining a 34-inch oak tree on the lot.
Staff described the request as four distinct setbacks needed to avoid the tree’s root system and canopy, and recommended approval with conditions to protect the tree during construction. The staff presentation said the arborist’s report, included in the attachments, recommended specific mitigations such as a temporary 3-foot-high barrier during construction, maintaining natural soil levels under the drip line, and a tree-well planter island where needed. "Staff supports their effort," the city planner said, while noting concerns about shortened driveway depth and the need for protective measures around the tree.
The applicant’s representative told the board the owners were trying to preserve the tree and that neighbors had signed letters of support. The representative said the proposed driveway measurement can be misleading because a private drive aisle adds distance: "It's closer to 27 feet deep driveway. It's not a 16 foot driveway," the representative said in explaining the request.
Homeowner Gary Brown identified the arborist (Ray Jarrett) and recounted the arborist’s advice: "He said we had to keep the, the house and the footers away, 15 feet away," Brown said, noting the project team had tried to minimize root impacts and could implement root trimming and barriers to protect the tree.
Board members pressed for alternatives — smaller footprint, reorientation or trading porch depth for front setback — and debated whether approving front-yard reductions along a street sets a problematic precedent. Several members warned a denial could leave the owners free to obtain a tree-removal permit and build without the tree.
To allow the owners to keep the tree while accommodating the building, the board split the variance package into four votes and approved each request with the conditions discussed in the public hearing. The board added a condition requiring the tree to be preserved except for natural causes and required implementation of the construction protections staff recommended. The recorded outcomes were: B1 (driveway depth reduction) approved (5–1), B2 (side-yard variance) approved (6–0), B3 (pool deck) approved (6–0), and B4 (front-yard 16-foot location) approved (5–1).
The approvals included staff conditions on on-site protections during construction, enhanced tree protection measures and a commitment from the owners to maintain the tree. Chair Wheatcraft thanked the homeowners and noted the board appreciated the applicants’ effort to accommodate neighbors while protecting the tree.
The applicants may proceed subject to the stated conditions and any required permits; the board record notes that if the property owner later chooses to remove the tree under a permit, the board’s voted condition limits removal to natural causes or equivalent triggers specified in the approval.
