HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09RESOLUTION NO. 2017-09
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE TOWN'S ADMINISTRATIVE
DENIAL OF TREE REMOVAL REQUEST TR17.OO14 REQUESTING
TO REMOVE ONE TOWN-PROTECTED OAK TREE IN THE REAR YARD AREA
OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 341 HARTFORD ROAD
(APN: 201-131-009 - yOO)
WHEREAS' DANIEL & LISE YOO (Owner/Applicant) have requested approval of a
Tree Removal application (TR17-0014) to altow tlll r"-orral of one Town-protected Oak
tree; and
WHEREAS, the .50 acre lot is located at Sll}{artlord Rd, APN: 201-131-009; and
WHEREAS, the Town's Tree Preservation Ordinance requires approval of a Tree
Removal permit prior to the rernoval of a Town-protected tree; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the
Requirements of the California Environmental euality Act (cEeA); and
WHEREAS, the Town took action administratively denying the application on June 2,
2017; and
WHEREAS, the property owner submitted a letter appealing that action on June 6,
2017; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a noticed public
hearing onJuly 25,2017; and
WHEREAS, the public notice of this action was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
deny the appeal and uphold the Town's administrative ãction denying the-reques! and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports,
recoûunendations, and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the heàring;nory therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies the appeal and upholds the Town'sadministrative action denying Tree Removal request TR17-0014 and makes thefollowing findings in support of this action:
1
FINDINGS
There is no evidence related to the subject tree or property which would allow
the Town to make the necessary findings as required by the Town's Tree
Ordinance:
a.As the subject tree is healthy, it is not necessary to remove the tree based
on the condition of the tree with respect to its health, imminent danger of
falling, proximity to existing structures, or interference with utility
infrastructure.
It is not necessary to remove the tree to allow for the reasonable use,
enjoyment, or development of tÈe property as the tree is not in a location
that would inhibit the reasonable development of the property or use of
the rear yard lor typical residential purposes.
c.There is no evidence supporting the tree's removal related to the age
andf or size of" the tree with regard to the appropriateness of the size of the
area in which it is located or that its removal would encourage healthier,
more vigorous growth of other plant material in the area.
APPROVED by the Planning Commission at a requesting meeting on luly 25,2017 by
the following vote:
b.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bowles, Combs, Graham, Haberl, Heusler, Radich, Verriere
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2OI7.O9
None
None
None