Loading...
09-27-07 - WorkshopMinutes of the Tree Conservation Board Workshop -September 27, 2007 ATLANTIC BEACH TREE CONSERVATION BOARD 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 (904) 247-5800 phone (904) 247-5845 fax www.coab.us WORKSHOP MINUTES September 27, 2007 A workshop of the Tree Conservation Board was called to order at 6:1 S p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2007 in the Adele Grage Cultural Center, by presiding Chairperson Maureen Shaughnessy. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. PRESENT Board Members Stephanie Catania, Jim McCue, Brea Paul, Maureen Shaughnessy and Carole Varney; Staff Plaruier/Liaison Erika Hall and Community Development Director Sonya Doerr. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS Two Atlantic Beach Residents, Craig Sealy and Kirk Hansen, were present and participated in discussion of the evening's topic. BACKGROUND The City of Atlantic Beach Tree Ordinance has had low priority at Strategic Planning sessions for the last few years due to a number of other large and pressing issues. There have been several minor administrative revisions, and there has been occasional talk of major revisions. However, the Tree Conservation Board has not invested a great deal into research or made any recommendations because the board understood that it was not the time to do so. Commissioner Jamie Fletcher requested that City Clerk Donna Bussey forward an email regarding updates to the tree ordinance to the Mayor and fellow commissioners, as well as the board, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and Community Development staff. Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the Tree Conservation Board Workshop -September 27, 2007 In that email, Commissioner Fletcher outlined seven specific revisions to the tree ordinance that he wished to be discussed at the upcoming workshop. At that City Commission workshop, held on September 17, 2007, Commissioner Fletcher polled his fellow commissioners as to their stand on the existing tree ordinance and asked them to support his recommendations. While all commissioners acknowledge that there are issues needing to be addressed, the general consensus was against supporting Commissioner Fletcher's very narrow and specific recommendations. Additionally, it became evident that neither staff nor members of the Tree Conservation Board had been consulted in the formulation of those recommendations. As a result, Mayor Wolfson invited members of the Tree Conservation Board and staff to begin an investigative process that might include review of Commissioner Fletcher's recommendations, and perhaps a comprehensive study of the tree ordinance, in light of issues experienced in the administration and enforcement, supplemented by public participation. Other commissioners echoed the need to craft an ordinance, whether it be through revisions or total re-write, that was sensitive to Atlantic Beach's unique character, and the goals and desires of the community. Thus, staff conferred with the Tree Board after the workshop and, because there was no new business to attend for the next week, the regular meeting of September 26 was cancelled and a workshop was set for September 27. Due to pre-election events, public attendance was slim, with only two attendees besides the full Tree Board, Planner/Liaison Erika Hall and Community Development Director Sonya Doerr. However, the session was productive. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION The board first briefly discussed issues that are inhibiting successful administration and enforcement of the tree ordinance. Namely, complexity of the language of the existing ordinance, and length/complexity of the application and review process, were at the forefront of this discussion. All present concurred that much could be done to clarify the language so that it is simple, direct and more easily understood by citizens. There was also consensus by board members that they would prefer to have staff review and issue permits "over-the-counter" for "black and white" residential applications that are in compliance with all requirements. However, they requested that they still be allowed to review applications for the more complex residential applications, upon referral of staff, and all applications for commercial development. Staff agreed that such a change would streamline the process for applicants and staff, and free up the Tree Board to concentrate on community educational efforts. Members also expressed interest in being charged with the duty of assisting staff in developing technical guidelines for landscaping. Issues that might be addressed would include site assessment, choosing the appropriate trees for size and location of site, xeriscaping, drought- and salt- tolerant plants and trees. Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the Tree Conservation Board Workshop -September 27, 2007 Ms. Hall noted that, in addition to those items already mentioned, a primary concern was enforcement. She presented a spreadsheet demonstrating the number of tree removal permits issued from 2002 until the present. The spreadsheet detailed the number of inches of trees removed, as well as the number of inches assessed for mitigation. Ms. Hall explained that, due to inadequate record keeping over the years, it was impossible to determine if mitigation had ever been met for most of the cases. And, beyond that, there was no indication as to what percentage was met by planting new replacement trees, designation of existing trees, or payment into the tree fund. However, she explained that she had been working to develop a system, and now that she was also charged with landscape inspections, she hoped to soon implement a practice of tracking mitigation and landscaping trees with mobileGIS. One resident in attendance (a landscape designer) added that effectiveness of the mitigation program could be enhanced by education, incentives to protect existing trees, and establishing mitigation requirements on an individual site-by-site basis. He noted that many applicants satisfy mitigation requirements only to remove the trees once the necessary time has elapsed. The board members next turned their attention to the seven recommendations published in Commissioner Fletcher's August 24th email: 1. To match our neighboring beach cities, it has been suggested that we require permits to remove any tree over a certain DBH. Tree Board members found fault with several aspects of this statement. First, board members noted that the tree ordinances of Neptune Beach and Jacksonville Beach were not necessarily consistent with one another. Second, "to match our neighboring beach cities" is not a adequate justification for making changes. The City of Atlantic Beach has its own unique character. It is the social, economic, and environmental threads of our urban fabric that must be considered and addressed by our ordinance - not those of another community. Third, requiring permits for removal of every tree is too radical. We need to concentrate on quality trees, and work to create a healthy canopy. Board members did like the idea of selecting particular species for protection, and exempting others. Additionally, they liked the idea of identifying specific Champion and Heritage Trees, and perhaps creating an incentive program for their preservation. However, these are all options that need to be explored further, and discussed with the community. 2. For public safety reasons, we might retain apart-time arborist through the city, using tree mitigation funds. Board members felt that putting an arborist on payroll, even part-time, would be a waste of money at this time. As an alternative, suggestions were made that we hire an arborist for specific advertised events, such as seasonal "clinics" or a "tree walk" in which an arborist would lead participants around town, pointing out good specimens of trees and troublesome diseases and pests such as the ambrosia beetle, as well as good and bad landscaping practices. Ms. Hall discussed the idea with the City Manager the following day, and Mr. Hanson suggested that these community-wide Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the Tree Conservation Board Workshop -September 27, 2007 events might be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Department, thereby leaving mitigation funds for tree planting. As to public safety, the City Public Works and Public Safety (Code Enforcement) Departments are vigilant of potential safety issues. If hazardous trees are on public property, they receive prompt attention. If they are on private property but threaten a public area, attempts are made to contact the owner. However, it is unreasonable to expect the City to assume the cost of maintenance for all trees on privately held property. 3. It has been suggested that franchise agents, such as JEA, get a permit before pruning. Board members realized that the issue is not whether or not franchise agents have a permit, but whether or not they follow best management practices for pruning. This is an issue that has been previously discussed with the City Manager and Director of Public Works, and one that cannot be addressed until franchise agreements are renegotiated. Partial resolution may come with the relocation of utilities underground, and educational efforts by the Tree Board may help residents make better choices as to tree species and planting location. 4. Possibly increase the minimum tree planting requirements for non-residential properties. The Board members felt that this was a reasonable revision. However, it should be considered in conjunction with the creation of technical guidelines that offer alternative scenarios for landscaping design, and that offer incentives for preserving protected, Champion and/or Heritage trees. Further discussion is needed to determine what the appropriate minimum would be for Atlantic Beach. 5. Possibly allow the Tree Board to consider the architectural layout of a property to improve tree conservation. It was unclear as to what Commissioner Fletcher meant by "architectural layout". Perhaps he was alluding to the site plan. Per section 23-19(g) of the existing ordinance, "In determining mitigation requirements, the board shall consider the following: (1) the existing tree canopy of the lot; (2) the tree canopy of the adjoining lots; (3) the topography of the lot; (4) the efforts of the applicant to minimize the loss of trees, through the size and design of the structure; (5) the cumulative effect of the tree loss." Additionally, applicants are asked to confer with Public Works to ensure that onsite drainage is sufficiently accommodated. Thus, this is a moot point. 6. Possibly allow notification of neighbors during the permitting process. It is not a requirement that neighbors be notified during any other permitting activities. Tree Board meeting notices are posted outside City Hall and Adele Grage at least one week before meetings, and meeting agendas are available on the city website and by request from City Hall one week before meetings. Additionally, all Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the Tree Conservation Board Workshop -September 27, 2007 applications to be considered by the Tree Board are posted online and they are available for public review at the Building Department. Finally, Tree Board meetings are open to the public, and members are more than willing to hear the concerns of surrounding neighbors. As noted above, "canopy of adjoining lots" is a consideration in rendering decisions and advising applicants. 7. It has been suggested that we increase the use of hardwoods and limit mitigation with palm trees. Please refer to Section 23-17(e)(2) of the existing tree ordinance, which states, "In general, protected oaks removed shall be replaced only with oaks. With tree board concurrence, hardwoods yielding a similar canopy may be used," and "New palms may be used only to replace protected palms removed." Therefore, this provision is already in place. RECOMMENDATION OF THE TREE BOARD It was the consensus of the board that. adequate opportunities needed to be provided for public participation and input, and that additional investigation needed to be conducted to identify the best methodology for Atlantic Beach's unique community. Maureen Shaughnessy, Chairpers Atlantic Beach Tree Conservation Board ~~. ate Page 5 of 5