Loading...
2008-08-13 (meeting minutes)City of Atlantic Beach Tree Conservation Board Regular Meeting Minutes August 13, 2008 A regular meeting of the City of Atlantic Beach Tree Conservation Board was convened at 7.03 pm on Wednesday August 13, 2008 at the City Hall Commission Chamber, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Board members Jim McCue, Brea Paul, Maureen Shaughnessy, Carole Varney, and Principal Planner/Staff Liaison Erika Hall. Board member Stephanie Catania was excused from the meeting. The position of Recording Secretary was vacant. 1. CALL TO ORDER ^ Chairperson Shaughnessy called the meeting to order at 7:03pm. 2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS ^ City Attorney Alan Jensen was recognised by the Board. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Shaughnessy called for a motion to approve the minutes from the July 23ra regular meeting. MOTION: Jim McCue moved to adopt the minutes of the July 23rd, 2008 regular meeting, as written. SECOND: Carole Varney seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: There was no further discussion. VOTE: Unanimous, 3-0 Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the August 13, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. TREE 06-00032018 5-69 1b-2S-29E Atlantic Beach Lots 15,17 Block 6 (Branholm) Mitigation Chairperson Shaughnessy invited the applicant to state his name and address for the record. Mr. Kenneth Branholm introduced himself as the previous owner of the subject property but did not give his address. He noted that the description was in error -that his original tree removal application was to only remove trees from Lot 15. Ms. Hall explained that the legal description used was correct, because at the time of the original application both Lot 15 & 17 were part of a common tax parcel. Mr. Branholm then said that he did not understand why he had been called before the Board, at which point Ms. Shaughnessy asked Ms. Hall to give a report on the matter. Ms. Hall explained that typically whenever tree removal permits are approved and mitigation is assessed, the applicant has until the expiration of the permit to either meet their mitigation or make arrangements for an extension. At the expiration of Mr. Branholm's permit in 2006, then Staff Liaison Rick Carper (Public Works Director) directed Code Enforcement Official Alex Sherrer to notify Mr. Branholm that his mitigation was due. Several weeks later, Mr. Branholm appeared before the Board and presented a written statement detailing certain hardship circumstances that prevented him from meeting his mitigation at the time and requesting leniency. The Board granted a deferment of mitigation based upon Mr. Branholm's written and verbal statements guaranteeing payment of mitigation. Mr. Branholm then interrupted Ms. Hall and said that he had not attended that meeting and that he had not agreed to pay (monetarily) for the mitigation. Ms. Hall referenced the official minutes of the November 8, 2006 meeting, however Mr. Branholm became more argumentative and attempted to speak over Ms. Hall. At that point, Ms. Hall read the letter signed and submitted by Mr. Branholm to the City of Atlantic Beach Tree Board, dated November 7, 2006: To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in reference to issues related to a potential lien from the City regarding Tree Removal Mitigation. It is my intent to sell one lot, as to afford myself to build on an adjacent lat. The recent real estate slow down and uncertainty regarding zoning and building restrictions have only compounded the selling of real estate in Atlantic Beach. I am sure, and have verified that property with a lien is a negative when an interested party is entertaining purchase. It was suggested to me to list both lots, as to maximize exposure at the time; that two MLS listings attract more attention than one. For these reasons, I humbly request that no liens be placed on said property. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, [Ken Branholm] Ms. Ha11 then read from the official meeting minutes of November 8, 2006: Page 2 of 6 Minutes of the August 13, 2008 RegularMeeting of the Tree Conservation Board Present were Chair Maureen Shaughnessy, Jim McCue, Carole Varney, Stephanie Catania, Public Works Director Rick Carper, and Recording Secretary Bambi Dickinson. Charles Carroll was absent...[Item 5.A.] Ken Branholm of 11433 Saints Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32246, was present, as owner of 342 S`" Street to address the Board in regards to a possible lien being placed on his property due to money owed the tree fund. He is requesting that a lien not be placed on his property due to the fact the land is for sale and he is having difficulty selling the property. Mr. Branholm feels that a lien on the property will make it more difficult to sell. Mr. Branhohn stated several times he intents [sic] to pay the amount owed as soon as he receives proceeds from the sale. A motion was made by Jim McCue to request that Public Works Director Rick Carper inform the Code Enforcement Office [sic] Alex Sherrer not to place a lien on the properly located at 342 5`h Street at this time. Carole Varney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Branholm continued to argue that he was not present at that meeting, and that he never said that he would "pay" for the trees... alluding to his current financial hardships. Ms. Hall again noted that these were the official minutes of the meeting and that five other ..persons were present, three of which were also present at tonight's meeting, and Ms. Varney interjected that she would have never seconded such a motion, or voted to approve a deferral without a personal presentation and guarantee from Mr. Branholm. Ms. Shaughnessy added that the Board had been sympathetic to Mr. Branholm's circumstances and taken him on his word that he would meet his mitigation whenever certain conditions were met. Then, when those conditions were met, Mr. Branholm failed to meet his obligations. Mr. Branholm said he still did not understand why he was called before the Board - that he had every intention of planting the trees. He said that the new owner was had been made aware that Mr. Branholm owed trees, and that he was in the planning stages of residential construction, and it would be stupid to plant the trees prior to construction. Visibly agitated, Mr. Branholm repeatedly asked the Board if they were only about money, because he did not have any. He said he thought the Board was about saving trees, but it appeared that they just wanted money. Ms. Hall explained that essentially, applicants enter into a contract with the City, by which the City grants permission for tree removal and the applicants agree to "pay" mitigation, either by planting new trees, protecting existing trees, or paying into the tree fund, in exchange for the right to remove trees. She then reiterated that applicants are required to meet their mitigation within six months of permit issuance, which is when the permit expires. However, arrangements can be made and agreed upon and documented by staff, to allow the new planting to be accomplished over an extended period of time, but usually prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection for whatever development may be permitted. However, if applicants do not meet those deadlines, or if they abandon their projects as Mr. Branholm did, after removing trees but before meeting mitigation, the City has the right to demand payment. Mr. Branholm argued that he did not abandon his project, but was court- Page 3 of 6 Minutes of the August 13, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board ordered to sell his property. Ms. Varney countered that Mr. Branholm's personal circumstances were irrelevant to this discussion -but she referenced a previous case in which a Habitat homeowner was ordered to pay over $5,000 in mitigation for mistakenly removing trees from City right-of--way. She noted that this person had paid her debt, and there was no reason that Mr. Branholm could not be expected to do the same. Mr. Branholm said that he had a letter from the new owner stating that he was aware of the mitigation and agreed to be bound by it. However, Mr. Branholm neither read the letter nor passed it around to the Board for inspection, nor was a copy submitted to staff for the case file. Ms. Varney said that there is nothing binding responsibility to the new owner. Mr. McCue asked City Attorney Alan Jensen if Mr. Branholm's agreement with the City in any way clouded the deed or damaged the transaction/transfer of property to the new owner. Mr. Jensen replied that had a lien been filed and recorded, it would have, but that did not happen. Mr. McCue then asked Mr. Jensen if, since the property has been conveyed, Mr. Branholm had the ability to plant trees on the property. Mr. Jensen recommended that if the Board were to extend that option, it should entail a formal letter of agreement, executed by Mr. Branholm and the new owner (DeGiovamii), and accepted by the City of Atlantic Beach, requiring the originally assessed mitigation of 54" be accomplished prior to issuance of a CO to the new owner. Mr. Branholm disagreed with the 54" of mitigation and stated that 51" was shown on the original application. Ms. Hall replied that the motion, as recorded in the official minutes of the January 11, 2006 meeting read: "A motion was made by Board Member Catania, seconded by Board Member Carroll, unanimously approved to instruct the building official to issue a tree removal permit for 12 inches of magnolia, 77 inches of palm, 21 inches of elm, 10 inches of cherry, 10 inches of laurel oak, all located in the exterior zone, and 36 inches of palm, 85 inches of live oak and 7 inches of bvrch all located in the interior zone, to be mitigated with 38 inches of palm, 10 inches of oak, and 6 inches of hardwood to be planted onsite." Thus, the official mitigation assessment was 54" [38 + 10 + 6). [Note: Calculation of the numbers submitted on the original mitigation worksheet indicates that the Board could have assessed as much as 82.50" in mitigation, or a cash value equivalent of $9,652.50; however the reviewing board had apparently come to agreement on 54': Thus that amount is being pursued by staff. - EHJ Ms. Shaughnessy added that, since no one had received a copy of or seen the contents of the letter to which Mr. Branholm referred, she would feel more comfortable having this discussion with the new owner present. Mr. McCue suggested that the Board defer further consideration of this matter until next meeting, so that Mr. DeGiovanni could be present and a draft of the letter of agreement could be discussed. Mr. Jensen stated that he could talk to Mr. Branholm's attorney and let him know what was needed in the letter. Page 4 of 6 Minutes of the August 13, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board MOTION: Board Member McCue moved that further consideration of this matter be deferred to a later date, at which time Mr. Branholm shall appear before the Board, along with Mr. DeGiovanni, bringing a draft letter of agreement as to responsibility for the outstanding mitigation assessed against the subject property, to be drawn up between the two parties, with assistance from Mr. Branholm's legal counsel and Mr. Jensen. SECOND: Board Member Varney seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hall noted that the next meeting would be August 27`". Mr. Branholm stated that he would be unable to attend that meeting. Ms. Hall said there would only be one meeting in September due to staff availability, and that meeting would be on September 24`". Mr. Branholm agreed that he would return at that meeting. There was no further discussion of the matter. VOTE: Unanimous, 4-0. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. TREE 08-00100036 334 9`" Street (Paphides) Tree .Removal Chairperson Shaughnessy noted that the applicant was not present, but that she had spoken with her on the property earlier in the day. She said that due to the bad weather, and the fact that the applicant had recently had back surgery and was not yet allowed to drive, she might not make it to the meeting. Mr. McCue stated that he did not feel this to be adequate excuse from the meeting. Ms. Hall gave a brief summary of the application, stating that Ms. Paphides had recently had several surgeries, including back, and was installing a pool for therapeutic purposes. Due to the primary structure being sited so far back on the lot, she was required to obtain a variance [ZVAR 2008-069, approved by the Community Development .Board on July IS, 2008 to locate the pool beyond the front of the structure. Ms. Hall said that the planned location of the pool was in close proximity to a large (35") leaning pine tree, and thus Ms. Paphides was petitioning the Board to remove that one tree. Ms. Varney noted that Ms. Paphides did not indicate how she would mitigate for the removed tree. Ms. Hall said that she has had several conversations with Ms. Paphides, and that she is aware of her options (planting, protecting, paying), but she suspects that Ms. Paphides may not have marked a method because she was waiting to find out if she would owe any mitigation because when the application was submitted, Ms. Paphides mentioned that the tree appeared to be diseased or dying. Ms. Hall noted that a portion of the upper tree did appear to be dead. Still, Ms. Varney said that the applicant should have marked an option, because with an incomplete application and no applicant present to answer the Board's questions, it was nat possible for them to act. Page 5 of 6 Minutes of theAugust Mx. M nor d: difficu seem 1 u~~,