During the meeting, attention centered on the landscape plan for a property on Ewing Street, where plans are underway to replace a single home with two dwellings and two accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The landscape design featured 33 new trees, 127 shrubs, and 86 perennials. However, a point of contention arose concerning the inclusion of non-native species such as boxwood and nandina. The landscape architect defended the selection of these plants, emphasizing their disease resistance and visual appeal. The architect noted that while some non-native species remained, substitutions had been made in response to feedback to incorporate more native alternatives.

The use of non-native plants sparked a broader discussion among board members, with some expressing a preference for native species due to ecological considerations. A particular focus was placed on the nandina plant, which was identified as potentially invasive. The architect clarified that the proposed compact variant was non-invasive and presented a visually appealing option.

Following this detailed dialogue, a motion to approve the landscape plan was made, incorporating a recommendation to amend the use of bamboo in the design. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, allowing the project to proceed with the discussed modifications.

The board then shifted focus to the 900 Herontown site, where landscaping issues were scrutinized in the context of a larger project transition from an office building to affordable housing. A key condition of approval required the planting of a buffer along the southern boundary of the property. However, inspections revealed several buffer trees were dead or missing, and the overall landscape condition was poor.

Concerns were raised about the feasibility of planting additional greenery on neighboring properties to bolster the buffer’s effectiveness, a plan that had been part of previous proposals. However, the current landscape plan did not include such offsite planting, focusing instead on a fence already installed. A representative noted that some replanting had occurred in response to inspection findings, but questions remained about the quality and timeliness of these efforts.

The board discussed the timeline for completing the necessary landscaping work, particularly in relation to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. While there were warranty provisions for replacing dead plants post-occupancy, recent legal changes complicated the landscape requirements. Despite these challenges, optimism was expressed about the current planting season, provided work was managed properly.

In a strategic move, the board decided to revisit the situation in the spring to reassess the landscape’s condition and ensure compliance with standards. The landscape subcommittee was tasked with evaluating the site and offering recommendations at that time. The meeting concluded with a plan to revisit the topic in March.