Laserfiche WebLink
On June 27, 2001., the Commission grantedthe appeal and approved the application with specific conditions. <br />E. The appeal is based on the appellant's belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused <br />its discretion with regard to the proposed rear access and garage location and thatthe decision was not based <br />on evidence in the record. The-appellant and applicant have been unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable <br />reciprocal access easement agreement. <br />F. The project as proposed would result in the removal of a large and venerable oalc tree. The <br />protection of such trees has long been of significant concern to the Town. Council also recognizes that the <br />applicant should be able to develop the.subject property in amanner that is consistent with its zoning. The <br />record of these proceedings thus far is lacking in evidence sufficient to convince Council that the only <br />..available option for the construction of a residence on the subject parcel would require removal ofthe tree. <br />While there has been a difference of opinion .among experts regarding. the viability of the tree if a house is <br />built around it, Council notes that Ian Geddes, an expert hired by the Town, is of the opinion that the tree <br />can be saved with a .house built .around it. Therefore Council concludes that the application should be <br />remanded to the Planning Commission to consider whether other options exist that could both allow <br />development of a residence and save the tree. Council believes that all reasonable options should be <br />considered, including those that would necessitate variances from setback requirements. This information <br />shall be obtained from an independent architectworkingfnr the Town who,. in consultation with the Town's <br />arborists, can advise the Commission on whether a house can be built around the tree. However, the advice <br />of an independent architect shall be necessary only in the eventthat theapplicant determines that he cannot <br />or will .not design a house that will save the tree. <br />G. The access issue raised by the appellant with regard to the current proposal is a private matter <br />that need not be further addressed by the Planning Commission. However, access issues may be considered <br />by the Commission to the extent. that they are relevant to a significantly revised proposal. <br />2 <br />