Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant cites century‑old oaks and design tradeoffs in seeking small addition
Summary
Applicant representatives said two 100+-year-old oak trees and household floor‑plan flow informed their decision to place a small two‑story office in its proposed location, arguing alternatives would undermine character or function.
Applicant representative Mark Lori Solner told the board the design was chosen in part to protect two large mature oak trees at the rear and side of the property and to preserve the street character. “We took that into consideration,” Solner said, and described the requested change as a “very small” encroachment that primarily impacts a rear/side yard area.
When asked by a board member whether a narrower office (about 8.5 feet wide) or an angled wall would avoid a variance, Solner said those alternatives were studied but judged to be either functionally inadequate or harmful to historic character. He noted that access above the garage or through an unfinished basement could theoretically be used in the future, but that those options did not fit the current plan or house circulation.
The board acknowledged tree‑protection as a legitimate design consideration but observed the variance decision must rest on the ordinance criteria; the planner had earlier noted the hardship standard depends on whether the condition is unique to the property.
