795 Plaza Road - Arborist Letter 11.11.2025
Tree Assessment
Inventoried November 11th, 2025
Prepared For: Brian Burghardt
795 Plaza
Atlantic Beach FL, 32233
Prepared By: David Martin
Certified Arborist #FL-9959A
ArborStar Tree Care Solutions
4930 Spring Park Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904-200-3121
ArborStarjax@gmail.com
Notice of Disclaimer
Assessment data provided by ArborStar Tree Care Solutions is based on visual recording at the time of inspection.
Visual records do not include testing or analysis and do not include aerial or subterranean inspection unless
indicated. ArborStar Tree Care Solutions is not responsible for discovery or identification of hidden or otherwise
non-observable risks. Records may not remain accurate after inspection due to variable deterioration of surveyed
material. Risk ratings are based on observable defects and mitigation recommendations do not reduce potential
liability to the owner. ArborStar Tree Care Solutions provides no warranty with respect to the fitness of the trees for
any use or purpose whatsoever.
1
Contents
Summary 3
Introduction 4
Observations 4
Methods 4
Purpose 5
Limits of the Assignment 5
Tree Location, Data and Photos 6 through 7
Conclusion 8
2
Summary
David Martin, an ISA certified arborist (FL-9959A), conducted a level 2 assessment on 1
Laurel Oak located at 795 Plaza in Atlantic Beach FL, on November 11th of 2025. The
findings are as follows.
3
Introduction
During the assessment of the Laurel Oak multiple defects were visually identified putting
the tree at a greater than moderate risk to the property. Upon results of assessment
recommendations were provided to help reduce the risk to an acceptable level following the
industries Best Management Practices (BMP).
Observations
● The soil is composed of sand and silt.
● The tree has 3 large cavities in the main stem both greater than 6” in diameter.
● A large top leader overhanging the roof with a diameter exceeding 7” broke out with
decay forming at the break point..
● There are multiple over extended limbs throughout the crown.
● The tree has several signs of decay in the main stem
● The tree has a large codominant union with included bark
● The Apex leader is dead, a new dominant leader is trying to form
● The tree has been “Clearance Pruned” by line crews to provide clearance from the
adjacent 3 phase power line
● Reduction cuts have been made over the roof with negative response growth (poor
compartmentalization
● Large girdled roots
● Limited planting space
●
Methods
Species: Tree genus and species were identified.
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): Trunk diameter was recorded to the nearest inch at 4.5 feet
(breast height) above grade, not exceeding 30 feet not to exceed +/- 1.5”.
Height: Approximate tree height was visually estimated with a variance not to exceed +/- 10’..
Crown Spread: Approximate crown diameter was visually estimated with a variance not to
exceed +/- 10’.
Condition: The arborist evaluated the structure and health of the tree compared to other trees
in surrounding landscapes. Excellent, good, fair, poor, or dead were used to describe conditions.
Risk Level: The arborist evaluated the structure and health of the tree and documented any
defects. Low, moderate, high or critical were used to describe conditions. Note on empty lots,
risk level was determined based on the proposed site and building plan.
4
Targets: All structures and items within 1.5 times the radius of the tree that could potentially
sustain damage or pose a risk to life in the event of catastrophic tree failure.
Objective: The client articulated their aspirations and concerns regarding the tree's condition
and future.
Recommendations: Tailored recommendations were provided in alignment with the client's
objectives and in accordance with industry Best Management Practices for arboriculture.
Geolocation: Approximate locations were determined by adding points to geolocated aerial
tiles. Locations provided by the land surveyor are more accurate, and should be used for design
purposes.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the tree in question and determine
their health and risk level.
Limits of the Assignment
Many factors can limit specific and accurate data when performing evaluations of trees, their
conditions, and values. The determinations and recommendations presented here are based on
current data and conditions that existed at the time of the evaluation and cannot be a predictor
of the ultimate outcomes for the trees. A visual inspection was used to develop the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations found in this report. No physical inspection of any canopy,
sounding, root crown excavation, and resistograph or other technologies were used in the
evaluation of the trees. Where vines, standing water or brambles prohibited access, DBH,
height and spread was estimated. If greater accuracy is required, an additional arborist site visit
should be arranged.
5
Tree Location, Data and Photos
Tree #1
Tree Number: YC1 (Orange on map)
Species: Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Diameter at Breast Height: 33”
Approximate Height: 47
Estimated Spread: 58 feet
Health: Active Decline
Risk Level: Greater than moderate
6
Targets: House, fence, pedestrian traffic, plantings, sidewalk, power lines.
Objective: To reduce risk to an acceptable level (low or none).
Recommendations: Removal
Photos:
7
Conclusion
Based on the comprehensive visual assessment, the Laurel Oak exhibits several
significant structural defects, including large cavities, decay at previous break points,
co-dominant stems with included bark, and a dead apical leader. The tree has also undergone
past pruning over the house, resulting in negative response growth—specifically decay at
pruning sites and excessive vertical sprouting—which has further compromised its structural
integrity. Additionally, past line-clearance pruning has produced poor-quality cuts and
contributed to crown imbalance.
The tree’s limited ability to effectively compartmentalize wounds indicates reduced vigor.
These conditions, combined with restricted root space and the tree’s ongoing decline, elevate
the overall risk rating to greater than moderate. Given the potential hazards to nearby
structures, utilities, and public safety, removal of the tree is the recommended course of action.
This will mitigate the likelihood of structural failure and protect both property and individuals in
the vicinity.
8
9