HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 - Comment - Jim Richards November 10, 2020
Comments and recommendations on Item 6.1; proposed development at 1475 Lawrence Rd
I do not oppose the development of my neighboring parcel, but there are aspects of the proposed
plans that I urge you to consider changing. I don’t think that any of these issues are inconsistent with
the applicant’s wishes. I do think that they are essential to help retain as much of the local, existing,
rural atmosphere as possible with no negative impacts.
The main issue is the potential loss of scores of established trees, both officially protected and not.
There are at least 83 trees on the property that are not within designated building zones but
nevertheless risk being removed. Everyone involved appreciates trees and would prefer to save the
majority of them if possible.
In large part, the conflict is due to the inclusion of bio-retention areas. Dozens of trees, including those
lining the scenic entry way could be removed. Beyond the fact that the trees perform remediation
tasks better, (refer to tonight’s “For the Good of the Town”), the creek being protected from roof
water runs directly alongside Lawrence Road - a road that drains off far more pollutants into the creek
than could ever be introduced from rain water off a roof. Especially when there is ample room for rain
water to percolate into the soil and be absorbed by tree roots and the underground water table.
By reducing or eliminating the bio-retention basins, dozens of trees could be saved, including Protected
Valley Oak #25 (“good health”; “fair-poor structure”) just West of the bridge. The new driveway does
not interfere with this tree. The problem with its structure is predominantly due to trimming away
from power lines, which will no longer be an issue, allowing this tree to regain its inherent potential.
Tree #5 (“very good health; good structure”) is in the middle of the bio-retention area on Parcel C. If
the basin is not completely removed, perhaps it could be modified to retain this Protected Tree.
Protected Tree #9 (“nice tree; strong structure”) should be taken off the removal list as the
recommendation was made based on a bio-basin that no longer exists. Reference Sheet TM-4, which is
updated from the preliminary drawing that the arborist used for the Tree Protection Plan.
Protected Tree #3 (“good health; good structure”) can also be saved given the modification in the
driveway, made since the arborist report was written. It remains near the drive but an attempt can
now be made to preserve it. While it is not on the list of allowed Protected Trees to be removed, it is
not on the “do not remove” list either.
An effort could also be mandated to save Protected Tree #4 (“very good health; good structure”). Like
Tree #3, it doesn’t appear on either list but it is fairly close to the proposed, widened driveway.
Summary of recommendations
Replace the bio-retention basins with less invasive, natural systems.
Retain storm draining systems for overflow conditions.
Expressly designate trees 3, 9 and 25 as trees to be saved.
Expressly designate trees 4 and 5 as trees to be saved if at all possible.
Jim Richards, 1463 Lawrence Rd, Danville