The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About785 Plaza 02.05.2026 Arborist Letter Tree Assessment Inventoried February 5th, 2025 Prepared For: Chris Middlebrooks 785 Plaza Atlantic Beach Fl, 32266 Prepared By: David Martin Certified Arborist #FL-9959A ArborStar Tree Care Solutions 4930 Spring Park Road Jacksonville, FL 32207 904-859-0045 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/Purpose 4 Observations 4 Methods 4 Limits of the Assignment 5 Tree Survey/Data 6 Species Considerations 9 Conclusion 10 2 Summary At the request of the property owner, a Level 2 visual assessment was conducted on two Cherry Laurel trees (Prunus caroliniana) located on the property. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate tree health, structural condition, and potential risk to nearby targets, including the driveway and surrounding landscape. . 3 Introduction/Purpose This report aims to present the findings from the assessment conducted at 785 Plaza, the findings will be submitted to the city of Atlantic Beach where they can assess any permit application fees or associated mitigation fees. Observations ● The soil concentration appears to be mostly sand. ● The existing soil is highly compacted ● There is limited planting space ● There are large surfacing roots encroaching on the the driveway. ● Poor codominant unions on tree #1 ● Heavy crown dieback in tree #2 Methods Property Boundaries: Tree ownership was confirmed based on review of the existing property survey. 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. 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. Defects: A Level 2, 360-degree arborist assessment was performed, beginning at the crown and progressing down the main stem, followed by an above-ground root inspection. The evaluation focused on identifying health, structural integrity, and safety concerns. 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. 4 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. 5 Tree Survey/Data 6 Tree #1 Species: Cherry Laurel (Prunus caroliniana) Diameter at Breast Height: 9” Approximate Height: 22 feet Estimated Spread: 18 feet Health: Fair Risk Level: Moderate Targets: Structure, driveway, pedestrian walkways Objective: To prevent future damage to the foundation, driveway and pedestrian walkways. Observations: Limited planting space and potential for surface roots causing damage to the driveway, foundation and sidewalks. Multiple codominant unions. Photos: 7 Tree #2 Species: Cherry Laurel (Prunus caroliniana) Diameter at Breast Height: 12” Approximate Height: 25 feet Estimated Spread: 21 feet Health: Fair Risk Level: Moderate Targets: Structure, driveway, pedestrian walkways Objective: To prevent future damage to the foundation, driveway and pedestrian walkways. Observations: Limited planting space and potential for surface roots causing damage to the driveway, foundation and sidewalks. Multiple codominant unions. Photos: 8 Species Considerations Cherry Laurels, while native to Northeast Florida, are known for: ● Aggressive, surface‑oriented root systems capable of girdling nearby vegetation ● High potential for hardscape disruption, including driveways and walkways ● Reduced structural reliability when growing in isolated or wind‑funneled locations ● Susceptibility to decay and structural decline when root systems become restricted These characteristics significantly influence long‑term stability and maintenance requirements. 9 Conclusion and Recommendations Based on the observed defects, species characteristics, and proximity to high‑value targets, removal of both Cherry Laurels is recommended. The 9" DBH tree presents ongoing and future conflict with the driveway, while the 12" DBH tree exhibits substantial necrotic tissue and declining health, elevating its risk level beyond acceptable thresholds. Following removal, it is recommended that both stumps and root flares be fully ground out to prevent continued root intrusion, eliminate trip hazards, and allow for proper restoration of the driveway and surrounding landscape. These recommendations align with ISA Best Management Practices and are intended to reduce long‑term risk and prevent future property damage. 10 11