Laserfiche WebLink
�— <br /> 8.A <br /> Page 65 <br /> c. The co-dominant trunk could have been removed and the resulting Tree would <br /> be structurally sound. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: Destroying this <br /> is not necessary for Mr. Carroll to construct his house, even as is, and is a violation of <br /> Standard E, in that the Planning Department ignored these options, and failed to apply the <br /> guidelines appropriately. I <br /> a. Appellants would have demonstrated that between 50% - 60% of the crown of I <br /> the Tree is on Appellants' property, and that the removal of the Tree would have <br /> caused Appellants a financial loss amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. <br /> 2. Appellants would have identified one or more real estate appraisers with the <br /> relevant expertise who would have established that removing the fully mature Italian <br /> Stone Pine would reduce the property values of at least four adjoining or nearby <br /> properties. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of <br /> the property owner with the financial interests of the adjoining and nearby property <br /> owners by unnecessarily authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the streetscape <br /> and the neighborhood. <br /> 3. Appellants would have identified one or more urban planners who would have <br /> testified orally or in writing that the loss of aesthetic, social/community, and <br /> environmental benefits to the neighborhood caused by the removal of the would be <br /> substantial, reasonably quantifiable, and totally avoidable. <br /> a. Appellants would have demonstrated that in an urban context, the size of the <br /> crown of the Tree and the and not its girth or other Forest Service indices of <br /> value are the relevant standard to assess the aesthetic, social/community, and <br /> environmental of the Tree. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of <br /> the property owner with the aesthetic, social/community, and environmental interests of <br />