Loading...
9-2-25 ESC Adopted MinutesMINUTES S ` ' Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee Meeting Y Tuesday, September 2, 2025 -12:00 AM IV, City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Daniele Giovannucci, ESC Member Bruce Andrews, ESC Member Amy Palmer, ESC Member Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Abrielle Genest, Principal Planner (PP) Kevin Auster, Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. The Chair explained that the committee's role is to determine whether the city staff complied fully and accurately with the statute as it stands, noting that any remediation or changes are the purview of the Community Development Board (CDB). 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINS.) There were no public comments. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. TREE25-0033 APPEAL - Appeal of the staff interpretation of the mitigation owed for 0 Sturdivant Avenue (RE #170682-0000). 1. City staff overview Planner Kevin Auster presented the appeal for Tree Permit 25-0033 at 0 Sturdivant Avenue (located on the south side of Sturdivant Avenue approximately 50 feet east of Pine Street. He explained that in April 2025, code enforcement noticed unpermitted work and removal of a tree, resulting in an enforcement letter. In May 2025, the applicant submitted an after -the -fact permit for what they assessed to be an 8 -inch diameter maple tree. Planner Auster explained that according to Section 23-8, any tree 8 inches or greater in diameter is protected unless it's an invasive species. He displayed photographs of the maple tree from 2024 street view and a 2025 photo showing the tree had been removed and replaced with pavers. Staff based their assessment on a certified sealed survey from March 17, 2022, which identified a maple tree with 5 trunks. Following the requirements in Section 23-8, staff counted the largest 4 trunks toward the DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) calculation, which measured 7", 12", 7", and 12" for a total of 38 inches. Since the tree was over 30 inches in diameter on a developed lot, it required a 1:2 ratio of inches removed to inches Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 1 of 6 owed. Because it was an after -the -fact permit, according to Section 23-51(d)(2), the mitigation was doubled, resulting in a total of 152 inches owed. The applicant was appealing staff s assessment of the tree size, claiming the city's calculations were overestimated. They assessed the trunk to be around 6-9 inches in diameter based on 2011 and 2024 street view imagery and claimed the tree structure may have been multiple closely planted trees rather than a multi -trunk tree. 2. Applicant overview Zain Jazrawi of 734 Oceanfront, Atlantic Beach identified himself as the property owner. He stated that his primary concern was understanding how the doubling of the mitigation requirement was calculated. He believed the tree was clearly an 8 -inch tree based on his personal observation and comparing it to nearby vehicles and infrastructure in photographs. He was asking the committee to reassess the total DBH. The applicant explained that a contractor who had done work in Neptune Beach removed the tree, and he wasn't aware of the different permitting requirements between Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach. He expressed willingness to plant trees but disagreed with the size assessment. 3. Tree subcommittee deliberation and action Bruce Andrews stated that he had reviewed the case carefully and based on his research on maple trees and the photographs, he concluded it was a multi -trunk tree. He noted that the survey was done in 2022, and there would have been three more years of growth by the time the tree was cut down in 2025, so the applicant was actually benefiting from the earlier measurement. Mr. Andrews explained to the applicant how the mitigation calculation worked: the 2:1 ratio was standard for a tree of that size on a developed lot, and then that amount was doubled as a penalty for removing the tree without a permit. Chair Giovannucci asked whether the pavers had been permitted, and the applicant confirmed they were also unpermitted, and part of the after -the -fact permit. The committee members agreed that the city had properly applied the code in this case. There was strong evidence that it was a multi -trunk tree, and the city's use of a certified professional survey from 2022 was appropriate. MOTION. To DENY the appeal of TREE25-0033. Motion: Bruce Andrews Second: Amy Palmer Daniele Giovannucci For Bruce Andrews (Moved By) For Amy Palmer (Seconded By) For Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Motion passed 3 to 0. B. TREE25-0009 APPEAL - Appeal of the staff interpretation of the mitigation owed for 1890 Live Oak Lane. 1. City staff overview Principal Planner Abrielle Genest presented the appeal for Tree Permit 25-0009 at 1890 Live Oak Lane. She explained that in January 2025, code enforcement received a report of unpermitted tree removal. Three trees had been removed: an 8 -inch palm tree, a 35.5 - inch magnolia, and a 17 -inch water oak. The applicant submitted an after -the -fact tree removal permit in February. In March 2025, the applicant submitted an arborist letter from Todd Turi, a certified arborist. The initial assessment indicated the arborist had conducted a visual inspection of pictures. Planner Genest explained that this did not meet the requirements of the state statute, which requires direct visual inspection of the tree in person. The applicant then had the arborist rewrite the letter to remove references to the visual inspection of pictures, but staff confirmed the arborist still had not physically seen the trees. Staff s mitigation assessment deemed the water oak exempt due to its proximity to a shed, which was a safety hazard. The 8 -inch palm tree required 8 inches of mitigation. The 35.5 -inch magnolia tree required 142 inches of mitigation (doubled due to the after - the -fact permit). The applicants were appealing only the magnolia tree mitigation, claiming it was a safety hazard based on the arborist's assessment of pictures. The arborist noted the tree was in serious decline with hollowing in the trunk and deemed it a safety hazard. However, staff did not find that it met the safety hazard exemption under Section 23-22(2) since no inspection occurred prior to removal. 2. Applicant overview Genevieve and Robert Covington, the property owners, explained that about a year earlier, someone who was working next door offered to trim trees on their property. This person pointed out a hole in the magnolia tree with a laser pointer and indicated the tree needed to come down as it was leaning over their screen enclosure. They had previously experienced damage to their screen enclosure during Hurricanes Matthew and Irma, and with two small children swimming in the pool, they were concerned about safety. The Covington's stated they didn't know that magnolia trees were protected, thinking only oak trees required permits. They explained they removed the tree solely for safety purposes, not for aesthetic reasons or to build anything. The palm tree was removed as "collateral damage" because it was wrapped up with the magnolia. Mr. Covington clarified that they weren't claiming to fall under the state statute exemption as they knew they didn't meet that criteria. They had paid the permit fee and double permit fee for the after -the -fact application. Their argument was based on the Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 3 of 6 arborist's report showing the tree was damaged and a risk, which was their only reason for removing it. The Covingtons emphasized that the arborist they used, while not working directly for the tree company, frequently consulted with them. They noted that the $20,000 fine was not commensurate with what they did, especially since they took down the tree for safety reasons rather than for construction or aesthetics. 3. Tree subcommittee deliberation and action The committee members examined photographs of the tree remnants. The applicants confirmed that the stump and all cuttings were still on the property, showing evidence of cavity throughout the trunk. Bruce Andrews explained that if the applicants had followed the proper procedure, they would have called the city first about the tree, city staff would have come to inspect it, and likely would have referred them to an arborist. The arborist would have inspected the tree in person, and if they deemed it a safety hazard, no permit or mitigation would have been required. Chair Giovanucci noted that while there wasn't an argument about whether the tree was unhealthy, the issue was the process. He pointed out that the code is clear that city staff or an arborist must inspect the tree before removal to qualify for the safety hazard exemption. The committee also discussed the oak tree that was removed due to its proximity to a shed. It was later revealed that the shed itself was unpermitted and did not meet setback requirements, which complicated the situation. After deliberation, the committee concluded that while they sympathized with the circumstances, the city staff had correctly applied the code. MOTION. To DENY the appeal of TREE25-0009 at 1890 Live Oak Lane. Motion: Bruce Andrews Second. Anry Palmer Daniele Giovannucci For Bruce Andrews (Moved By) For Amy Palmer (Seconded By) For Motion passed 3 to 0. In a separate motion, the committee made a recommendation to the Community Development Board: MOTION. That the standard mitigation be applied (without doubling) in consideration of the circumstances if the applicants chose to appeal to the CDB. Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 4 of 6 Motion: Amy Palmer Second. Daniele Giovannucci Daniele Giovannucci (Seconded By) For Bruce Andrews For Amy Pabner (Moved By) For Motion passed 3 to 0. C. TREE25-0017 & TREE25-0017 APPEAL - Appeal of the staff interpretation of the mitigation owed for740 Sherry Drive and 760 Sherry Drive. 1. City staff overview Director Amanda Askew presented the appeal for 740 and 760 Sherry Drive. She explained that the properties are located on the west side of Sherry Drive and back up to a portion of Howell Park. The tree removal began before the permits were finalized, though the applicants had applied for permits. Director Askew explained that in 2024, former staff member Brian Broedell met with the applicants on-site and identified trees for removal. In March 2025, the applicants applied for tree removal permits but did not complete the application process or schedule the required inspection despite staff reaching out multiple times. In April 2025, the applicants were issued a building permit, but because they did not schedule the tree inspection, the tree permits were not issued. The applicants assumed that since the building permit was issued, the tree permits were also finalized. Tree removal began in August 2025. Director Askew noted that the application process clearly states that "a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved prior to the removal of identified trees." For 740 Sherry Drive, the standard mitigation was 135 inches (after preservation credit) or $20,250, with double mitigation of 310 inches or $46,500. For 760 Sherry Drive, the standard mitigation was 142 inches, with double mitigation of 284 inches. The applicants were appealing because they claimed they didn't know trees within the building footprint did not require permits or mitigation, assumed the building permit allowed for tree removal, and were appealing the enforcement of double mitigation. 2. Applicant overview The applicants were not present at the meeting. Director Askew read their appeal into the record, which stated they had scheduled a walk with city employee Brian Broedell who flagged trees for removal. After a lengthy building permit process with numerous submittals and resubmittals, they received an email with the permit number and permit card. In their excitement, they overlooked the tree permit final approval and removed some trees in the house footprint area without scheduling the final inspection. When contacted by the city planner, they immediately called to apologize and schedule a walk Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 5 of 6 the next day. They expressed embarrassment about their error and requested leniency with the fines. 3. Tree subcommittee deliberation and action The committee discussed whether this situation had occurred before, and staff confirmed it had but had never been appealed. Staff explained that the building permit and tree permit are independent processes, and that they had now changed their policy to no longer issue building permits if there are outstanding tree permits. Bruce Andrews expressed concern about the perception that Atlantic Beach is difficult to do business with as a builder and wanted to ensure they weren't being overly nitpicky. Kevin Auster clarified that the applicants had submitted a complete application with all the correct information about trees to be removed and preserved but failed to follow through with the final inspection. The committee reviewed the code language, particularly Section 23-23(a)(3), which states that "Any person engaging in the removal of a regulated tree prior to obtaining a permit" requires an after -the -fact permit with doubled mitigation. They concluded that the city had correctly applied the code, as the final inspection is a crucial step to verify that the trees marked for removal match what was in the application. MOTION: To DENY the appeal of TREE25-0017 for 740 and 760 Sherry Drive. Motion: Amy Paliner Second: Bruce Andrews Daniele Giovannucci For Bruce Andrews (Seconded By) For Amy Palmer (Moved By) For Motion passed 3 to 0. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Attest: MOW V V Ij A =Wd?jWj, Fffidll jFj F -A 06 Int -P Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee September 2, 2025 Page 6 of 6