Laserfiche WebLink
F- <br />A UG M`c, t� S- <br />poor I F,, _. <br />but there is a Tree Protection Ordinance. Under that ordinance, <br />this tree falls within the definition of a protected tree; <br />however, there are also about 14 circumstances under which the <br />protected tree cannot be required to be maintained, and the <br />burden on the applicant is to demonstrate that he falls under one <br />of the exceptions to the Tree Protection Ordinance. <br />Discussion followed as to the different things the applicant <br />could claim. Commissioner Scurlock felt they probably don't want <br />to kill the tree either, but he believed that relocation of the <br />proposed building might cause problems with the circulation of <br />traffic through their bays. <br />Planner Boling felt the applicant also will claim that the <br />tree causes them a visibility problem from U.S.I, but he still <br />believed there is a lot of room to work around and save the tree. <br />He then noted there is general criteria for review of Special <br />Exception uses which says "The proposed use shall be consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan and with the stated purpose and <br />intent of all applicable regulations of the Code." The stated <br />purpose and intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance is to save a <br />tree if it is not necessary to remove it and it can be saved. <br />Attorney Collins noted that Mr. Boling is relying on the <br />general stated purpose of intent to argue that we can place this <br />condition. We do have a general purpose of saving trees, but we <br />also have stated criteria and the general can't control the <br />specific. If Mr. Hedin can meet one of the exception <br />circumstances, Attorney Collins did not think we can require him <br />to preserve the tree. <br />Chairman Wheeler opened the public hearing and asked if <br />anyone present wished to be heard. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing <br />the applicant, Karl Hedin. Attorney O'Haire referred to the <br />history of the problem they have had to reach the decision <br />regarding the left turn lane that Mr. Hedin would not be required <br />to hold up the use of his property until that was accomplished, <br />22 <br />