HomeMy WebLinkAbout07181996 ZBA Minutes.~
• ~.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES FROM JULY 18, 1996
The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following
members present: Chairman Sterling Minor, Michael Neal, Melinda Snell and Lee
Huber. Absent were Frank Billings, Sue Porretto, Amy Chaisson Selig, and Ty
Hutchins. Present from the City were Chief Building Official Dennis Holm and
Building Secretary Susan Thorn.
The first item on the agenda was the hearing of the residents.
No one was present.
Notices were read and participants were sworn in.
Michael Neal made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Melinda Snell
seconding the motion.
Voting for: Minor, Neal, Huber and Snell
Voting against: None
• The motion carried.
The second item on the agenda was Public Hearing of 96-07, concerning property
located at 6542 Westchester, South 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 33, West University Place
First Addition. This was a request for a variance to allow a garage to remain 2.3 feet
from the north property line and construct a second story above.
The property owner of 6542 Westchester James F. Smith gave the following as the
reason for his request. Mr. Smith stated "The garage was built on the property at
6542 Westchester in 1972. A survey made at the time reflected a three foot side
setback. When I submitted plans for a second story addition to the garage and a
new survey was made on the property, the survey showed the garage to be 2.3 feet
from the north property line. The garage is structurally sound, and when it was
constructed in 1972 it was built to commercial standards and moving a wall in order
to bring the garage into compliance would violate the integrity of the structure."
Sterling Minor asked "Where is the driveway on the property next door was
located?" Mr. Smith said " It is on the opposite side of the house located next door
and additionally there is plenty of clearance between any of the houses located
nearby his property at 6542 Westchester."
• Melinda Snell asked "How was the mistake made on the original survey? Mr. Smith
explained "There was a survey made in 1987 which also showed the garage to have
.,
-~ •
C~i~.Y'TETt 22 Urb~n ~orest I'reservatioa atid Eahaaccmeat
Se~ 220a3_ Tcec disposition oonditions (tor buildiag pcraziis); tcee surveys
(a) Genervl requiremenl_ Every pe~it for developmeut or pre-developmeut ac:tivitj• m~ ~nta~
t~nae disposibion oonditions meeting the requiremeats af this ~ac•,tio~
(b) F.~sential vnd mand,atory conditiort~ Trae disposifioa oonditions ane t~e mast impoi*anx ~
of pnota~ing flie u~aa forest of i~ CSty fi~om uar~onable hanm dudvg dcveiopmea~t and p~-d~a~~t
s~v~itY- Trx disposition condi~ons si~a1L-
(1) ~ Prohibit re~noval of or damage tu airy Iacge tree, exocp~:
(7 =rmoval of a~~oe which is diseasad, scvr~rlY d~d or dead may be au~o~~
and
Cu) damage to or remowat of a~x wbich c,~naises aa umreasonabie impedimeat to ~e ~
- aad eajoymeat of S~e spplic~ ~patymaq be a~mH~aa~d; aud
('ui] damag~ to or remo~val ofa low~vaIu~o trx may be au~ori~~oct. .
Cl) i't,aquire repiacenieat tr~s, i~o the eaatartp~+ovid~ed ia ~,e c~aman,na~ fQr~ay 1~e ~
auSio~i~od t,o 6e Da~od orR,ar~aved. E~aa~orr No r~pla~ocaiemt is raq~in~od fa~r Io~
value ta~ -~ .
~3) ' Requi~ protec.[ion far ~at~ge traes (aad CSci~Cai Raot Zoaes). Th,e con~~ns n~ay ~
~e me8~ods of prot~ac:fia~ ~o be usod.
~`~ ~~ ~~Y ~~~ ~ irees~be minimi~ed and m~6gat~. Tfie o~ons
~Y ~Y ~ ~mi~fig~Cia~ ~o be used.
C~ Roquiu~if8~a+eismajord~cv~eio~~t~affoct~adsabjoc:tsi~Gea~amiaumvrm
ptaafmg s~aadard of ttee dmsitp as set fu~ in~c ~.maa~aal.
(c)Pnocedsa~e Thebail~gaffic~mis~alinatissueaaYP~~~9~~~azPra-
d~v~iopn~t Activity unless sIl fl~e ~olloaring hav~e S~st oocx~aed:
~~ ~~~9- ~~m~ha~e5iodatroesucvoey,aa,dffi~tubaa~mvsti~ave
~ov~od itforc~li,ano~~~i.s ~
C~ TroeLhsp~fion~a~ns.33nxdis~fioao~c~.sappc~oa~edyy~enc~~nf+o~
nnasth~ebeeain.~erbadimbo8~pemiit ~nc~aafnres6ermayraq~~ircallp~o~s~qg~d
wlia~ a trae is Ioca~ted to agc+ae to aay ~vat of or d~+e to flie troe a~m~a~mod by ~e coad'ifions
~(~ "Low`-imP~act" exoeption. Exoept for ~e roqcimemeat ~o i~at ~e m~ad~ctoty co~fioas, ~is~
~ec~ioa docs siot apply to a subJ~ ~ P~'oJect or oflier ac~ivity 8~t ~n'il not l~vo sn~' signific~ adve~e
tffect upon any laige iree, as dete~miaed by i~e urbaa foreste~ ._. _
h-ne.w-eef orm
C~
~
• a setback of three feet, but the survey was based on the 1972 survey. However, in
1992 surveys were required to be done independently and a point of reference is
used to find the markers." Mr. Smith presented various surveys of the properties
located around the property at 6542 Westchester. Mr. Smith explained "One
neighbors garage was already located four feet away from the property line and his
other neighbors garage was located three feet away from the property line according
to the original survey, but gained seven inches when the new survey was done and
the recent survey change created a problem for his garage only."
Zola Cater resident of 6538 Westchester spoke in favor of granting the variance:
She stated "I purchased my property in 1976 and knew the previous owner of 6542
Westchester. Because this garage is well constructed I do not feel it should have
to be moved."
Sterling Minor asked "If Mrs. Cater knew what the predominate driveway pattern on
the street was? Mrs. Cater replied "It was about half and half."
Four letters were received in favor from the following residents:
Verna Lee Freeman, 6523 Westchester
Stephanie & Rich Langenstein, 6528 Westchester
• Zola Cater & William Eakes, 6538 Westchester
Bill ~ Rebecca Caldwell, 6546 Westchester
Dennis Holm gave the City's position: "He stated there would actually be two
variances granted: one for the watl of the structure and a second variance for the
eave. The building code requires the eaves of structures to be a minimum of three
feet apart. The wall of the structure would have to be fire protected."
Sterling Minor stated " The prevailing interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is that
the wall of the structure would have to be three feet away, however it is actually the
eave which must be three feet away."
Mr. Holm explained "The eave of the garage at 6542 Westchester extends
approximately one foot into the setback area. It is the City's position is either the
variance is granted or permits to allow the addition would not be issued. This is not
a prior non conformance, when the building was constructed it was thought the
garage had a three foot setback, because the latest survey revealed this is not the
fact the building is now an illegal building."
Sterling Minor stated "This is one of the issues the City Council is looking into. The
ordinance may be changed so either buildings built by a specific date would be in
• compliance or structures encroaching into a setback by a few inches would not
require a variance."
. ~
CHAPTER ~Z Uri~~n Forest Preservatioa aad Eahanccment
Scc. 22003_ Trcc disnosition conditions (for buiIding permiis); ~+ee sarveys
(a) Ger,erQl requiremeau Every ~x,~it for developmeut or predevelopmeut activitj• m~ ~nta;,n
t~+ee dispos~ition conditions meeting the requiremeuts of ~is ~ac~ion.
(b) Fssentivl vnd mand,atory corrdiliorts ~'rae disposition oonditions ane the mast in~orta~t ~~
of prota~ing 8ie urban foirst of the CS~ty fi~om n~nre~onable ~aa~ d~ dcveiopmea~t and Ix~-d~eiop~=
~t3'- Tre~ disposition conditions shall:
(I) ~ 1'rnhibit removal vf or damage to a~ry large tree, eacoqrt):
(7 ranoval ofavroe wbich is dise~ed, scviarly damagoda~rdeadmay ~~
and
Cu) damage to or removai of a~x which caioses aa u~asoaable i~mpodimeut to ~e ~
sad eaJoymcat of S~e spplic~m~s~xiopetip maq be a~m~a~d; ~
Ciu7 damage to or rea~avai ofa i~n~valuc ~+oe may be su~o,o~ad.,
(~ ~aquinre~tao~~tt~rees,taofl~ee~tp~+o~nid~ed'mfl~ecat,eaamaa~l,fa~aayls~getracs
auSioii-r od t;~ 6e 3~amagod orR,~ov~cl. ~sxo~orr I~To rcpla,a~ea~t is roqturod fa~r Io~
value ti~oes -~-
~ " Requine protedian for ~acge ~+ees ~aad ~,~ifical Root Zoaesj. Zhe c~ons s~, ~
~e m~ods af~on to be u9od.
~`~ R~ ~~Y ~~~ irees~ 6e minimi~ed and ~d- 3~e oa~d'~ons
~Y SP~Y ~ a~f~aa~o beu9ad.
(Sj RaQuire,iffl~+eismajard~weiop~~Q~t~sffec~adsabjoc~snteat~auiaminimwn
pLasfmgai~adard oftrxdeasttyas ~etf+o~in~te ~maauaL
(c) Pnocedro~e. ~he bunl~qg affic,iml ~ali not issv~e aa9 P~~ ~~9 d~opmea~ar Pra-
dc~dopm~tAc~vityvnless aII II~efnllov~r~ghav~eS~staaxmrod:
~l) T~+aeS'~uv~ey. Thea~c~tmastba~eStodatroesvcv~ey,aadfl~c~f~masthave
ePPru~od it far aom~Ii~aoe ~& ~ns cba~
(~ TraeDisp~ifioaC~difioas.33c+x~coa~a~s~d~y~~afo~
m~t~ave beeamse~~ed in~(;o 8icpe~it 3l~eta~aaf~maqroqvure al~P~a~s~ I~ud
whac a~nee is loca~ted to agnee to any rema~val ofor d~e to flie trae a~ bq S~e con~t'ion.s
~(dj "Lotia~-imPac[" ex~tion. Exoept for 8ie roquiremeaat t,o aisat ~e manda~y ca~fi~s, ~is`.
axtioa does aot apply to a subject si~e„ p~+oject or o9~ ac~ivity 8~aut w~l not have an9 's~uf' zc~ a,dver~e
tffect npon any Iarge tx~e~ as detetmined by the tui~aa foreste~ --• -
b:r~e..K~eef.orin
•
; '
• Melinda Snell asked "Was the eave requirement ever enforced?" Mr. Holm stated
"Yes, it was always the rule, but possibly interpreted differently."
No one spoke in opposition and no correspondence was received opposition.
Melinda Snell made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. This
motion was seconded by Lee Huber.
Voting for: Snell, Huber, Minor and Neal.
Voting against: None.
The third item on the agenda was Public Hearing of 96-08, concerning property
located at 3816 Bellaire, Lots 27 thru 31, Cambridge Place. This was a request for
a variance to allow a proposed bell tower to be 40' in height filed by St. Marks
Episcopal Church.
The following representatives from St. Marks Episcopal Church were in attendance:
Rob Reader, Co-Chair of the Building Committee for St. Marks
Fran Barrett Head of St. Marks School
• Bill Merriman 8~ Paul DeGroot of Merriman Holt Architects
Robert Reader stated "A family life center is being constructed towards the rear of
the property at 3816 Bellaire Blvd. A proposed bell tower would be constructed to
draw attention to the new addition. In order to blend in with the slope of roof on the
new building the Church is requesting the bell tower have a height of 40 feet, and
there would need to be a variance granted of 5 feet to the maximum height
restriction of 35" in the Zoning Ordinance."
Bill Merriman of Merriman Holt Architects explained "In the designing the new family
life facility one of the things they wanted to do as part of their concept of the project
was to let people know there is a major facility at the rear of the church. They had
tried to be a good neighbor to the residents located nearest the church property.
The height of the rest of the new facility would be 25 feet The bell tower would help
drawn attention to the facility because the view of the new facility is blocked by the
existing fellowship hall and by oaks on the front of the property. This new bell
tower would be close to the height of the main sanctuary building."
Board Members asked Mr. Merriman "Would the bell tower still be visible if it were
35 feet high?" Mr. Merriman answered "The bell tower would still be visible if it
were 35 feet in height, however it would not blend in style."
• Fran Barrett Head of St. Marks Episcopal School stated "The St. Marks School is part
of the Church and the element of the bell tower ties them together. "
. •
~~~'T~ ~ Ur-i.~~n Forest Preservatioa aad Eahaaccment
Sec 22003_ Trcc disnosition coaditions (for building pe=miis); tree surveys
~a) General requiremenr. Every pe~it for developmeut or pre-developmeut activiij, m~ ~ntain
t~+ae disposition oondirions meeting t~e raquir~euts vf tbis ~ec;(ion.
(6) EssentiQl vnd mcrnd,atory corldilioars ~'~e di~oa oonditions are the mast inipv=tant
ofproteding the u~an forest oft~ CSity ~+om u~onableha~d~ dcveiopmeutsnd ~~~eans
adivity. Trx disposition condi~ons shalL- F~eut
(1j ~ Prohibit r+e~naval of oc damage to auy large tree, eacoept):
~ r~ovgi of a~roe wbich is di~easad, sev+a~dY d~od or dead may bo au~o~,~
and
(u) damaSe to ar ~unoval vf a~nx vvhich cmases sa ~le impodimeat to ~e u~e
' aad ealoy~mcat of 8~e spplic~a~['s ~mopatpmay b~ ~ d
~
Crii] damage to or removai ofa ~ova~vatuo troe may bc m~fivm'~od.
Cl) ~oqainC t~tacemeat trees, to 8be ex~emc p~id~od ia ~e ~am~ foraay 1~ge ~s
au&os~od ta be Damagod orR,ar~ov~od. ~orrNo repla~oemea~tisroquu~odfarlo~
value ~~aes. -c-
{3) ~ Requu~e protedian for ~ge trees (and ~I R,ootZoaes~. Th,e ~a~s may ~
~e me~ods afprot+ac~ia~a to be usod.
~~ ~r~ ~t saY s~oo~od d~nage ~+o trees~be mini~ui~ed and ~~ed,. ~ co~ons
~Y~Y~~~~o beusad.
(S~ Roquirqif~+eism~qacd~cvaelopm~fl~t~,ea~odaabja~s~ie~aminimvm
pLanSng standat+d of t~ dmsityss s~ f~ m~c cau6caamamomL
(c) Pracec~ure The bunlc~n,gafficxmis~allnotis~eany~it~an9d~opmemtozPra-
dcv~dopm~t Activitp vnless sII ~e followia,g havae Sst aocxia+od:
Cl) TracS`~cv~e9. TheBppfic~mtmustbavoeSioda~roesatv~cy,an,dfl~em~aa~mv~tbave
$~+ov~od it furoompIiaaoe ~ ~is ~
(~ TzeeDisp~ifioaCoa~fia~as. ~}+x~iosnCo~aoon~~vyg~~nfo~
mnstt~e~eam~~adi~bo8iepmmit 13~etn~aaf~may~allP~~~d
wtiaea t~e is Iocated to agi.+eei;o aaqreaiovatofordsmsg+e~o flietrae~by~eoand'ifions
~(dj '"Low impa~ct" exoe,~tion. Exoept f~or 8~e roquiranernt to ia4at ~e maad~ut-aty ca~fi~s, ~us"
~ec~ioa does aot apply to a subject sit,e„ P~lect or o9zer acxivity 8~ut w~l na~ have any ~ adves.~e
~~ ~P~ ~3' large iree, as d~eimined by t~e urbaa foresteL ~ .__
~'nc~YGee!_orrr~
•
r
•/ Melinda Sneil asked "Would the bell tower actually have a bell or if it was only
referred to as a bell tower for aesthetic reasons?" Mr. Reader replied "The minister
has been looking into purchasing a bell for the tower, but whether or not a there
would be a bell has not been determined."
Paul DeGroot of Merriman Holt Architects explained "The bell tower would front on
an interior courtyard on the church property. There are two structures on the church
property which already exceed the maximum height requirement of 35 feet: The
main sanctuary and another bell tower. These structures were built sometime in the
forties."
Mr. Holm gave the City's point of view: "There was a Zoning Ordinance in effect in
1937. There may not have been a height restriction on spires at that time and the
existing buildings on the Church property are not part of this variance request."
Board Members asked "Did Mr. Holm know of other buildings in West University
Place which exceed the maximum height requirement?"
Mr. Holm gave the following examples: "The Methodist and Baptist Churches and
several other churches have buildings higher than 35 feet. The Methodist Church
was granted a variance on the height of a new addition because it was tied into an
• existing building. There are also chimneys and antennae over 35 feet, as well as
wall parapets between townhouses."
Michael Neal asked "Are chimneys required to be a certain amount of inches above
combustible materials?." Mr. Holm answered "There is a minimum of three above
the roof ridge."
No correspondence was received in favor.
No one spoke in opposition and no correspondence was received in opposition.
Michael Neal made a motion to close the~ evidentiary portion of the hearing. This
motion was seconded by Melinda Snell.
Voting for: Neal, Snell, Minor and Huber.
Voting against: None.
The motion carried.
During a discussion of Docket No. 96-07, Sterling Minor made the following
• statement "A front setback is difFerent from a side setback in that the street width
will more than likely never change; however, after examining the issues in this
instance concerning the granting of a variance to a side setback it is also unlikely
..•
C3iAI'TER 22 Urb~n Forest I'resuvation aad Eahaac~,aieni
Se~ 22.0a3_ Tr~c disposition condifions (for building pcrmiis); tree sarveys
(a) General requiremenl_ Every perniit for develapmeut or pre~-developmeut activitj• m~ ~nta'
irae disposition oonditions meeting the raquurmeats of this ~eetion. ~
(b) F.ssentivl arrd marrdatory conditior~ ~'I+ae disposi~ion aonditions ane the most in~o~ m~
of protaxing the urbaa forest of the C~iy fr+om u~able ha~ dudng dcvciopmemt and P~-d~eloPmc~a
~tY- T~x disposition conditions shall:
Cl) ~ ProIubit rea~uv~I af or damage ta airy lacge trees excep~:
(~ r~oval af a trae w~uch is disease~ scv~a~elY d~d or dead may be au~a~,~
and . . _ .
~u7 damaSe to or remov~I of a~roc wbich ca~aises sn t~mc~oaable impodimea,t to $ie use
aadea~°ymeatof ~e aPP~~~P~Y~3' ~~ad,; ~aad
Cu~7 da~g+e to orremovai ofalow~-v~tne~+xmay beau&oa~ad.
(~ itequ~it+e rr~Lacemeat trees, to ~e ~mt p~vid~ed ia 8~e ~~ for aay I~gc troes
au&o~od t,o 6e Damagod ar R,ea~o~od. ~ No rq~laoemea~t is roqiunod far Iow~
value ~aes_ ~-.
(3) ~ Requi~e protac~on f~ ~ge trees (aad CS~i~cai Root Zoaes). The ca~ic~s may ~
Sie me6iods a~fprotac~ia~ to be usod.
~'~ R+aQ~ fl~t saY a~od damage t~o tt~ees~ be mi~ed and mi~g~ted. The oo~d~'cons
~Y~Y ~s ~~to be usad.
C~ R«iuar,if~a+eismaja~daweiop~~ttheag~oc(aodaabjoc~srte~aminimIIm
ptaafmgstanaat+a oftrxdeasityas se,tf+otSiinSiecaubeuamamaaL
(c)Pno~cedure. ~hebnild'iqgafficiaisbalinotiss~eaa9P~~~Yd~~opa~mtorPra-
de~dopme~tAr,civity tmless aII ~e f~olloarm,ghav~e S¢stoax~aed:
Cs~ ~~~9- T~~m~ustha~cSlodah~xsvc~,q,an,dflievcb~afo~rmast~ave
~d itforoom~li~noe~8ws chap~t
(~ ~'raelhspasifion~~di+~oris. Tree~fia~oondific~s~dbyt#~m~taf+o~+estra
ma~sthavebeeam9a~od iab~ &,epe~it 3~enc~aaf+oresbrrm~qroquireatip~o~s~g ~d
wha~a tre~ is Iocaatedto agc~aeto aaq~vatofard~ageto~traea~ori~edb~-~eooad'ifions
f'
"(~ "LoK"-unPact" exoeptiort Exoept for 8ze raquu~anernt to insett ~e maad~y ea~6ians, g~is ~
~oa does not apply to a subJect sct~, ~oJect or o8ier activit~r fliat ~r71 not ha~te aay ~can~ adves~e
effect upon a~' Iarge iree, as d~ezmined by the t~rbaa fores~ter_ .... _
~:ne..rtreef.orm
•
~` to matter." Mr. Minor stated he would entertain a motion to grant the variance.
Michael Neal stated the eave encroachment did concern him, however it could be
remedied with a french or "flush eave".
Michael Neal made a motion to grant the request for a 2.3 foot setback and to allow
the eave and gutter to encroach no more than 7 inches. This motion was seconded
by Melinda Snell.
Voting for: Neal, Snell, Minor and Huber
Voting against: None.
The motion carried.
After a brief discussion of Docket No. 96-09 Melinda Snell made a motion to grant
a variance to allow the bell tower to have a height of 40 feet. This motion was
seconded by Michael Neal.
Voting for: Neal, Snell, Minor and Huber.
• The motion carried.
Melinda Snell made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by
Lee Huber.
Voting for: Neal, Snell, Minor and Huber
Voting against: None
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
r~
~
r' -' , ~ ~
Ci~AY'TEi2 22 Ue-ban Forest Presc.rvatioa and Eahauccment
Sec 22003_ Trcc disnositio~ ~oaditioas (for buildiag pcrniiis); h~ee surveys
(a) General require,nent. Every ~x,amit for develvpmeut or pre-developmeut acttvitj, ~~ ~n~in
tnee disposiiion oonditions meeting the require~meuts of ~is ~ion.
(b) F.ssentivl crr~d tnandatory cottdiliorz~ ~nee dis~ition aonditions are $e most in~p~ ~S
of prataxing 8~e urban forest of th~ fS~ty firom ~oa~Ie ha~ dutuig dcvelopmeait and Pro-cleveloPmeux
~vi~3'- Trx disposition condifions shaIL-
(1) ~ ProIubit z+e~nov~t of or damage to a~ry large trce, exoep~:
(~ r~oval of a t~roe which is disea,sad, sev~a+elY da~tgcd ar dead may be au8~ori~,c~
and .
Cu) damage t;o ar removai of a~+x wbich causes sa umc~soaable im~adia~eax to flie vse
' Bad eaJapmeat of ~e a~lican~C's ~oPaty maY be ~o~a~d; ~nd
Crii] damago to or remaval ofa ~o~-vaIuc ~+oe may be ~od.. .
Cl) it,aqa~ire r~taceaieat trees, t+o ~e ~mt p~-id~od ia ~e cuteaa~ for uay ~~s
au8iori~od to be Damag+od orR,anav~d. E~roq~Fort I~Io roplaoememt is roqua~od f,ar Iow~
value ii+aes. .~.
{3) ~ Requme Protec~ian for.~arge trces ~and ~i RootZoaes~. Th,eca~fions saa~r
8ie me&ods a~p~ot~ac~on to be t~od,. ~
~`~ ~~~Y ~a~ed damage i~o ~rees be vunr~ni~od aad mi~t;ed- ~e oo~COns
~Y~Y ~ ~~~~o be usad.
t~ R«Iuur,if~a~eismajord~cvoeio~~~eaffec(~odaobjoc~sntea~b~aiaamiaim~an
pLanfmgsEandara ofiraed~t.yas ~et~rn~mt~e~m~mo~at.
(c) Frocedure ~he b~nld'iqg affic,ial ~Ii not issue aaY P~ ~~9 d~apmemt ~Pre-
~vp~A~ivitY vmless sII ~e folloaring havre S~st oocxra~ocl:
(~~ ~~~9• ~~~m~Lav~efiiedatroesuv~c,q,andfl~~f~amn~tbave
~ov~od itforcom~lianoe~~is chs~
C1) TroeDispon6ionCon~fioas. Troedispo~con~fiot~s~db~-flmnt~anf~
mast h~ve boea insar~od ia~o 8~e pe~it Ihe tn~aa f~ mayraqi~ire a1~ p~as o~g tand
~ a ti+e~ is Iocat+ed to agc+ee i;o aap re~noval af or damsge ~o ~e t~nroe ~o~modby ~e ea~d'ifion.s
~ (~ '"Low inrpact" exoeption. T~coe~t f~ 8~e raciuireaie~t to insat ~e manda~bozq ~, ~_
~octia~ does not apply ~o a subjed sit,e, ~+oJect or oS~ activiety 8~ot w~l not bavc say sr~cau~, adve~e
effec~v~pon an~' lazge ~ as dete~cmiaed by t~e urban foreste~ •-- -
~~e.v[reef.orm
~