2008-03-26 (meeting minutes) v c ss•
City of Atlantic Beach Tree Conservation Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2008
A regular meeting of the City of Atlantic Tree Conservation Board was convened at 7:05 pm on
Wednesday March 26, 2008 at the Adele Grage Cultural Center, West Meeting Room, located at 716
Ocean Boulevard in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Board Members Jim McCue, Brea Paul,
Maureen Shaughnessy, Carole Varney and Staff Planner/TPO Administrator Erika Hall. Stephanie
Catania was absent from the meeting. The position of Recording Secretary was vacant.
1. CALL TO ORDER
• Chair Maureen Shaughnessy called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
• There were no visitors present in the audience.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
v MOTION: Jim McCue moved to adopt the minutes of the March
12, 2008 regular meeting, as written. Brea Paul offered a
second, and with no further discussion as to the accuracy of the
minutes, the vote was unanimous. However, Mr. McCue had a
question related to an item from the March 12, 2008 agenda.
That item has been listed under"Old Business" as item 4.a.
4. OLD BUSINESS
a. TREE 08-00100008
In reference to the Durante application for tree removal related to the
West Plaza Extension to Lily Street (TREE 08-00100008) considered at
the previous Tree Conservation Board Meeting, Mr. McCue questioned
why all residents to be served by the extension were not required to
chip in and may for both the extension as well as the cost for tree
removal and mitigation. Ms. Hall said that the agreement was one
reached between Mr. Durante, the applicant, and Director of Public
Works Rick Carper, and she did not know the details of that
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the March 26, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
agreement. She explained that in her past experience as a planning
consultant to private sector clients, one typical scenario is similar to
"proportionate fair share", in which users paid proportionate to their
impact on whatever infrastructure was being built. However, in
smaller communities such a system is often not in place; rather
whenever development reaches a certain threshold in a particular
geographic area, it triggers the extension of existing infrastructure,
and whoever happens to be seeking permits at that gets the additional
infrastructure tacked on. In this case, it is the burden of the applicant
to bring other parties to the table to share the costs. Ms. Paul who
works for a private sector planning & engineering firm concurred that
this is typical. Ms. Shaughnessy agreed that it is unfortunate that
individual property owners are hit with these hidden expenses when
they go to build a home. Mr. McCue then asked how many platted
roads remained to be built, to which Ms. Shaughnessy replied that
there are quite a few on the west side near the marsh, referring to "all
the 'flower' streets. Ms. Hall explained that land use case law takes
the position that it is the responsibility of the developer to know what
s/he is getting into; i.e., s/he must do his/her due diligence and
determine what surrounding conditions are (wetlands that are
unusable or require a substantial buffer, adjacent industrial uses that
might be a nuisance, etc) as well as which amenities and/or
infrastructure is in place, and what will be required for further
development (such as water, sewer, electricity, roads, etc). Mr. McCue
agreed that is correct and acceptable for developers, but he said that
he does not consider Mr. Durante a developer, per se. He
recommended that the Commission be made aware of this and how it
impacts the average property owner wishing to build on their property.
Ms. Shaughnessy noted that because this issue does not fall within the
purview of the Tree Board's duties that perhaps members should
discuss this with commissioners as private citizens. [Note: the
definition of developer, below, is taken from the Chapter 23, Article II,
Section 16, Definitions, of the City of Atlantic Beach Code of
Ordinances, and is included for clarification purposes].
Developer/Builder/Contractor means any person, firm or other legal
entity that purchases, agrees to purchase or otherwise holds an
interest in real property with the intent to, or in fact does, develop
such property for any construction (by himself or others) thereon for
which an application for a building permit will ultimately be required
[Section 23-16. Definitions.]
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the March 26, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. TREE 08-00100011
1730 Ocean Grove Drive
Altenbach for Dixon / residential redevelopment
No one appeared before the board as representative of this
application. Ms. Hall explained that this application was for tree
removals related to residential redevelopment at 1730 Ocean Grove
Drive. She said that initially, she spoke with local contractor Michael
Phillips in early November 2007 regarding this project, and on
November 7, he provided a tree survey and said that only those trees
located in the interior zone would be removed. Ms. Hall said that she
reviewed the tree survey, and because none of those trees were
protected, she told Mr. Phillips, by means of phone message that a
tree permit would not be required, nor would mitigation, for those
interior trees. However, Ms. Hall said that she also noted that if any of
the exterior trees were to be removed, then a tree removal permit
would be required, as would appropriate mitigation. Ms. Hall said that
she never heard back from Mr. Phillips regarding the project. Then, in
mid-December, she noticed an Ocean Grove property was going
through Development Review for residential redevelopment but she
had not received a tree removal permit application for it. Additionally,
the contractor listed on the building permit was Ocean Development /
Michael Altenbach, thus she did not connect this property with the one
previously discussed with Mr. Phillips. So, on December 20, 2007, Ms.
Hall sent an email to staff involved with Development Review of this
project to let them know that she had not received a tree removal
application. Both Building Official Dave Hufstetler and Community
Development Director Sonya Doerr had already signed off on the
project. On January 8, Public Works Director Rick Carper contacted
Ms. Hall to find out if she had received a tree removal application
because of concerns over accommodation of onsite retention and tree
mitigation, to which Ms. Hall replied that she had not. Mr. Carper
replied that he would include in his DR notes that the applicant would
be required to submit a tree removal application, and include contact
information for Ms. Hall. Later that same afternoon, Ms. Hall received
a phone call from Mr. Altenbach to discuss the requirements and
application procedure. On January 9, 2008, Ms. Hall responded to Mr.
Altenbach's inquiry via email, attaching an application that she had
partially-completed, based upon information contained on the building
permit application, and including instructions for completion of the
application and other materials that needed to be submitted. On
Monday, March 10th, Building Permit Clerk Kerri Brugman called Ms.
Hall and said that Mr. Altenbach was at the Building Department to
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the March 26, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
pick up his building permit for 1730 Ocean Grove and wanted to know
if he still needed to submit the tree removal application. Ms. Hall
replied, yes — that the building permit could not be picked up until the
tree removal application was received, reviewed and a tree removal
permit issued, if necessary. On Tuesday, March 18th, Ms. Hall said that
she received a tree removal application for 1730 Ocean Grove that had
been submitted to the Building Department.
Mr. McCue noted that the submitted site plan did not show onsite
stormwater retention or the construction materials staging area, nor
were tree barricades shown for those trees not marked for removal.
Questions arose as to whether it mattered if these elements were
included on the site plan, and Ms. Hall read the following from Section
23-17(d)(1), which lists the elements which shall be included on an
application for site clearing and tree removal or relocation:
a. A site plan, at a scale which clearly illustrates the requirements
of this section, including the following:
1. The lot configuration;
2. The location and identification of existing and proposed
improvements, if any, including structures, water
retention areas, paving, grade changes, utilities,
easements, and street rights-of-way or approved private
streets;
3. The location and identity, by botanical or common name
and DBH, of protected trees to be removed, relocated,
or retained;
4. The location of preserve areas;
5. The location of ingress/egress corridors and staging
areas;
6. The location of all temporary protective barriers;
7. The location of all trees to be used for mitigation credit.
Ms. Hall pointed out that the interior/exterior zones were also drawn
incorrectly, using the Building Restriction Line (BRL) rather than the
specified setbacks of 20' front & rear and 7.5' on each side, thus
effecting possible protected status and mitigation for a couple of trees.
Additionally, she noted that eighteen (18) trees were marked for
removal on the tree survey and site plan, but only seven (7) were
listed on the tree mitigation worksheet. Ms. Shaughnessy said that it
was not possible to know the full intention of the applicant without
someone being present to address these items, or alternatively
submitting an updated, completed application. Ms. Paul added that it
is only fair that all applicants submit complete applications that meet
the minimum standards, as deemed necessary by the code for review.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the March 26, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
■ MOTION: Jim McCue moved to defer consideration of TREE
08-00100011, pending submittal of a correct and complete
application, and to request the presence of the applicant
and/or authorized representative at that meeting, should
Board Members have questions. Carole Varney seconded the
motion, and without further discussion, the vote was
unanimous.
6. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
■ Erika Hall:
Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association presents
"A day at...the historic Glen Saint Mary's Nursery"
Friday, April 11, 2008, 9:30 am — 4:30 pm
Ms. Hall passed out a flyer for this event and noted that the event is free
to guests of ASLA and FNGLA members, and continuing education units
(CEUs) are available to registered Landscape Architects. Scheduled to
speak are Dr. Ed Gilman (UF), "Effects of Severe Weather on the Design
and Installation Practices for Urban and Suburban Trees"; Joe Sewards
(IFAS), "Low Impact Development"; Deirdre Irwin (SJRWMD), "Florida
Water Star Program"; Robert Bowden, "Underutilized Plants for the
South".
• Carole Varney:
St Johns County Cooperative Extension Service presents
EPIC Celebration of Spring Festival
Saturday, April 19, 2008 — Sunday, April 20, 2008
Ms. Varney said this annual event features numerous vendors with plants
and gardening items, as well as informative lectures and clinics at the
demonstration site, located at the 3125 Agricultural Center Drive, St
Augustine.
7. ADJOURNMENT
✓ MOTION: Jim McCue moved to adjourn, Brea Paul offered a
second and the meeting was adjourned by Chair Maureen
Shaughnessy at 7:50 pm.
Adez ,ore CHos, 5441.1j/AfEy
SIG D: Maureen Shaughnessy, Chair Date
l
ATTEST: Erikta Hall, Staff Planner/TPO Administrator
Page 5 of 5