2008-05-14 (meeting minutes) v l_t\.,\J„
r'r
J� \`
S
• ,
1T
r • , ,
J am' a ,
\IVZ;\
�U1319r"
City of Atlantic Beach Tree Conservation Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
May 14, 2008
A regular meeting of the City of Atlantic Tree Conservation Board was convened at 7.•07 pm on Wednesday May
14, 2008 in the North Conference Room of City Hall. [There was a last minute change of venue, from the Adele
Grage Cultural Center, due to inaccessibility of the facility. Board members and applicants were notified by phone
call, and a sign indicating the change of venue was posted on entrance for other attendees]. In attendance were
Board Members Jim McCue, Brea Paul, Maureen Shaughnessy, Carole Varney and Staff Planner/TPO
Administrator Erika Hall. Stephanie Catania was excused from the meeting. The position of Recording Secretary
was vacant.
1. CALL TO ORDER
• Chair Maureen Shaughnessy called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
• Ms. Shaughnessy welcomed Atlantic Beach residents Dwin Ford, Aaron Scheklin, Jim
Scott, Donna Zimmerman, and Eleny Zimmerman and thanked them for their
attendance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Jim McCue moved to adopt the minutes of the April 23, 2008
regular meeting, as written. Carole Varney offered a second, and with no
further discussion, the vote was unanimous.
4. OLD BUSINESS
a. TREE 08-00100011
1730 Ocean Grove Drive
(Altenbach for Dixon / residential redevelopment)
Ms. Hall summarized that permit TREE 08-00100011 was issued on April 10, 2008
for the removal of specific trees totaling 119" in the interior zone and 55" from the
exterior zone, and requiring 27.5" mitigation with hardwoods. Subsequent to the
issuance of this permit, the City of Atlantic Beach was notified that trees were being
removed from the entire lot. The applicant was requested to stop tree removal and
Page 1 of 9
Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
submit a revised tree survey accounting for all trees on the lot, and specific notation
of those to be removed and those to be preserved. Upon receipt of a revised
survey, the item was placed on the agenda for review by the Board.
Michael Altenbach, general contractor and applicant for the tree removal permit,
was present. Chair Shaughnessy commented that she had visited the site earlier in
the afternoon, finding that all trees, including those in the 17th Street right-of-way
and supposedly "barricaded" for protection, were marked with pink ribbon.
Additionally, she did not find the required posting of the site address or any permits
issued by the city. She expressed serious concern that the tree survey before the
board was a second revision, and by her count, there were five, six or more trees of
protected size along the northern boundary still not shown on the survey. Board
member Carol Varney stated that she had not been able to make a site visit and was
unable to verify whether or not the last submitted survey was consistent with the
site. She suggested that perhaps further review of the application should be
deferred until all board members could inspect the site.
Ms. Shaughnessy asked Mr. Altenbach if he could provide insight as to why it has
been so difficult to present the board with an accurate survey. Mr. Altenbach
explained that the original survey was done a couple of years ago, but for a number
of reasons, the project been on and off again. He said that he had used this
particular surveying company for years, and relied on the assumption that they had
done the job completely and correctly. Ms. Shaughnessy asked had Mr. Altenbach
not been out to the property and looked at the trees, in comparison to what was
shown on the surveys he submitted? The original tree survey submitted showed
twenty-one (21) trees on the subject property, in addition to the six (6) trees in the
17th Street right-of-way. The first revision showed nine (9) more trees on the lot,
while the second revision added fourteen (14) more within the property lines.
Besides the five or six along the northern property line that she mentioned earlier,
Ms. Shaughnessy questioned Mr. Altenbach about a cluster of palms near the
southwest corner of the lot. Mr. Altenbach replied that those trees were not on his
property. Ms. Shaughnessy asked how it was possible for the average person to
know that, to which Mr. Altenbach replied that they were in the right-of-way. Ms.
Shaughnessy explained that they should be included on the survey. Mr. Altenbach
asked why he should have to survey trees that were not on his property. Ms. Hall
interjected that trees in the right-of-way adjacent to a development parcel should be
included on the survey 1) to clarify ownership, and 2) because there is potential that
during construction, those trees might be damaged if not properly identified and
barricaded. Further, the burden of proof that the trees were not on the applicant's
property, as well as the burden of protection of those trees falls on the applicant.
On the point of barricading trees in the right-of-way, Ms. Shaughnessy noted that
the city trees in the 17th Street right-of-way were also surrounded with the same
pink tape as the trees to be removed. She said this was unacceptable. Mr.
Page 2 of 9
Minutes of the May 14,2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
Altenbach replied that Ms. Hall had told him that he could group those trees
together, rather than barricading them individually. Ms. Shaughnessy responded
that while, yes, it is acceptable to "group" clusters of trees, it is not acceptable to
mark trees to be preserved with pink/red/orange tape, as clearly explained on the
instructions accompanying the tree removal application. Ms. Hall added that she
has also specifically repeated the instructions for completing a tree survey and
preparing the site several emails to Mr. Altenbach. Jim McCue asked if Mr.
Altenbach had even ever looked at the application. Mr. Altenbach said that Ms. Hall
had filled out the form and sent it to him and he figured it was complete. Ms. Hall
noted that she filled out the application form because what was originally submitted
by Mr. Altenbach was unacceptable. She then returned the nearly complete
application form to Mr. Altenbach via email, with further instructions for reviewing
and completing it, as well as the instructions for preparing the site for inspection.
Mr. McCue told Ms. Hall that she needed to stop spoon-feeding the contractors, and
that it was their [the contractors'] responsibility to submit a complete and correct
application.
Ms. Shaughnessy invited public comment on this application.
Donna Zimmerman, 1736 Ocean Grove Drive, stated that she lived directly north of
the subject property and her primary concern was the trees being removed from
that property line, thus affecting her fence and shed.
Jim Scott, 1720 Seminole Road, stated that he owns the property directly west of
the subject property, and he was concerned about the trees being removed along
that property line and beyond. Further, one tree had fallen over onto his property,
damaging a Palm, azaleas and ferns. The tree was down approximately a week,
and had only been removed that afternoon.
Ms. Hall confirmed that she has spoken with Mrs. Scott on several occasions,
beginning on morning of Monday, April 21st, in reference to the incorrect placement
of the property line and a number of trees on the Scotts' property being marked
with pink tape, as if they were to be removed. The inspection resulting from this
initial conversation prompted Ms. Hall to immediately request a revised survey. It
was at this point that the interior of the lot had been cleared, and a great deal of
brush had been cleared around the perimeter so as to allow access and better view
of what actually stood. Ms. Hall said that she told Mr. Altenbach that he could
continue with the underbrush clearing and removal of several specific dead trees
she observed, but she did not anticipate tree removal would continue. However,
she was contacted by Ms. Zimmerman the following Monday, April 28th, and told
that the tree removal service was on premises and they were continuing to removed
trees. When Ms. Hall arrived on site, she saw that a large grouping of trees, shrubs,
underbrush that had been present on the southeast corner of the lot (and not
shown on the survey) had been totally removed. Noting that there was still neither
Page 3 of 9
Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
address nor permits visibly posted on the property, she approached the two workers
on site and asked if they a copy of the permit or the tree survey. When they finally
responded that they did not, she presented them with a copy of each and explained
that only those trees shown with an "X" on the survey (the first submitted) were
approved for removal. One of the workers replied that he was told to take
everything down. Ms. Hall said she explained that it had been determined that an
inaccurate survey had been submitted, and that only five trees in the exterior zone
were included on the survey. She said that Mr. Altenbach had been notified of this
the prior Monday, and until a new survey depicting all the trees in the exterior zone
was submitted and reviewed, no trees were to be removed from the exterior zone.
Ms. Hall said that the workers displayed cavalier attitudes and ignorance regarding
Atlantic Beach tree removal policies, and she reported this to Mr. Altenbach upon
her return to the office. However, he took no responsibility, telling her `that's just
the way those guys are".
While on site, Ms. Hall met with Ms. Zimmerman and explained the provisions of the
tree ordinance, including how mitigation is rendered based upon tree location and
size, and the factors that are allowed to be considered, as well as the rights of the
owner to develop their lot within the city's land development regulations.
Ms. Shaughnessy said that she had met with Ms. Zimmerman earlier Wednesday
and also discussed those provisions. While she is sympathetic to the concerns of
both neighbors, she is even more concerned over number of protected trees not
shown on the most recent survey. Because private property rights are highly
coveted in Atlantic Beach, owners are basically allowed to cut down all of their trees,
so long as they follow the procedures, mitigate for what is removed and meet the
minimum tree requirements. Mitigation can be accomplished by either planting
replacement trees or, if the lot will not accommodate the quantity required for
mitigation, payment of a cash-equivalent amount into the tree replacement fund.
That fund allows the city to plant trees on public property, for the benefit of the
entire community. Whenever an applicant submits an inaccurate tree survey and it
goes undetected, mitigation is assessed based on false information.
Ms. Zimmerman said that she was also worried about the impact of tree removal on
her trees because of the close proximity and the intertwining of the roots. She
asked why the existing trees could not be trimmed. Mr. Altenbach replied that a
two-story house was going to be built 5'6" away for the property line and that it was
just impossible. Ms. Varney said the health of Ms. Zimmerman's trees should not be
affected by the removal of the trees and the intertwined roots. Further, she
explained that the ordinance requires that trees not be planted within such close
proximity of a structure, adding that the trees would most likely die when the
concrete was poured.
Page 4 of 9
Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
Mr. Altenbach said that it was the intention of his client to landscape and replant
and put up a new fence. However, he said that he does not believe the lot will
accommodate the required, and he has proposed [to Ms. Hall] to mitigate in the city
right-of-way. Ms. Hall interjected that Mr. Altenbach had informally made that
proposal, but she told him that would have to be presented to the Directors of Public
Works (Rick Carper) and Public Utilities (Donna Kaluzniak) for discussion. Brea Paul
added that she would not recommend planting anything in the right-of-way because
of potential disturbance by impending improvements.
There were several exchanges between adjacent property owners and the applicant
regarding damages to their properties and his lack of responsiveness. Chair
Shaughnessy attempted to bring the hearing back to order, recognizing that this is
an emotional issue, but that the duty of the Tree Board is to apply the regulations as
written. She reiterated that her first concern was the fact that all of the trees were
not shown.
Jim McCue asked about the lack of several required elements on the [revised]
survey, such as the building footprint, stormwater retention, etc. Mr. Altenbach did
not respond, so Ms. Hall provided the board with a copy of the site plan submitted
with the original application. Ms. Varney said that she would feel much more
comfortable knowing what was going back in. Mr. McCue asked if there was a
landscape plan, to which Mr. Altenbach replied no. He said that it takes a year or
more to build such a house, so he could provide a landscape plan in six months and
have plenty of time to implement it.
There was continued dissension amongst members of the audience. Ms. Varney
explained that Mr. Altenbach was within his right to remove trees for the purpose of
development of the lot. The City of Atlantic Beach has already granted a permit for
the construction of a two-story house, and as long as he is in compliance with the
regulations of the city, including meeting the procedural requirements and the
mitigation requirements of the tree protection ordinance, he may proceed. Ms. Hall
noted that it is this failure to follow procedures of the tree protection ordinance that
constitutes the problem at hand.
Ms. Shaughnessy asked if there were any protected trees that were to remain. Mr.
Altenbach replied none — all trees are to be removed. Ms. Shaughnessy told the
board that a motion would have to specify that a landscape plan must be submitted
for verification purposes. Brea Paul added that she would like to see a landscape
plan. She said that she was sure that the property owner going to such expense to
build this home certainly has a vision, but it was difficult for her to envision with no
assistance from the applicant. Speaking to the concerns of the adjacent property
owners, she said that she realized that change is difficult, especially for neighbors,
but that the rights of the subject property owner had to be respected.
Page 5 of 9
Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
Ms. Varney asked Mr. Altenbach how soon he planned to start construction, to which
he replied Monday morning [May 19' ']. Chair Shaughnessy asked the Board if
anyone was ready to make a motion. Receiving no reply, she looked to Ms. Hall for
direction. Ms. Hall explained two possible options: The board could accept the
revised tree survey showing a total of 359" trees, as submitted. Of those, 201" are
protected and would require mitigation at the rate of 1:2, or 100.50". Translated
into a dollar amount, mitigation would be $11,875.50.
Alternatively, it could be concluded that it is not possible to determine with
reasonable certainty the total number and sizes of protected trees that actually
stood in the exterior zone of the subject property prior to the commencement of
tree removal. In such a case, the Board could assess mitigation at the rate of $5.00
per square foot for the total area of the exterior zone, which is the area of dispute.
Ms. Hall then calculated the area of the exterior zone to be roughly 4,200 square
feet, and the resultant mitigation to be around $21,000.00.
MOTION: Jim McCue moved that, based upon a finding that it is not
possible to determine with reasonable certainty the number of protected
trees removed from the exterior zone of the property located at 1730
Ocean Grove Drive, the director assess the $21,000.00 mitigation for
clear-cutting the exterior zone of said property. Further, in absence of a
landscape plan, the applicant, acting on behalf of the property owner shall
provide a landscape plan demonstrating the accomplishment of the
remaining mitigation previously assessed according to TREE 08-
00100011.
SECOND: Carole Varney offered a second and asked that it be noted that
it was done reluctantly. Brea Paul said she was opposed to this action because it
did not address the issue at hand, which was the applicant's blatant refusal to follow
the procedures. She said that the applicant should be required to submit a
complete application with an accurate tree survey accounting for all trees, removed
and remaining. Assessment of the $21,000.00 would merely be passed along to the
property owner as part of the cost of construction, without consequence to the
offender.
SECOND WITHDRAWN: Carole Varney withdrew her second.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Jim McCue withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Carole Varney moved that further consideration be deferred
until the May 28th meeting, thus allowing all board members and staff
ample opportunity to revisit the site. The applicant is requested to submit
a revised the tree survey to account for all trees, removed from and
remaining on the property located at 1730 Ocean Grove Drive, properly
mark the boundaries of the property and properly barricade all trees to
remain, including those located in the right-of-way.
SECOND: Brea Paul seconded the motion.
Page 6 of 9
Minutes of the May 14, 1008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
VOTE: Unanimous, 4-0.
b. TREE 08-00100012
2391 Ocean Breeze Court
(Raab / residential development)
Richard Raab, property owner, and Richard Thompson, general contractor and
applicant for previous tree removal permit, were in attendance in support of this
item.
Ms. Hall informed the board that Mr. Raab, as previously requested had provided a
revised survey accounting for the trees seaward of the Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL) not shown on the previous survey, as well as preliminary landscape plan
indicating replacement trees. Additionally, Ms. Hall completed a mitigation
worksheet tallying up all trees removed and mitigation due according to code. She
also reported that she had confirmed with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) that all materials proposed for replacement were appropriate to the
dune ecosystem.
Mr. McCue asked Ms. Hall what the status was with DEP, and suggested that
perhaps this item should be deferred until someone from DEP could attend. Ms. Hall
said that she had had discussions with both the Permit Manager as well as the Local
Field Representative, and they were well aware of the situation, as she had
previously reported. Additionally, she had conferred with them as to the appropriate
species for replanting. However, the decision to pursue a violation of DEP
regulations was not one she had authority to make. Ms. Shaughnessy added that
Ms. Hall had properly consulted DEP and sufficiently conveyed pertinent information,
but that it was up to that agency to pursue its own violations, as this board and staff
had enough work keeping up with local applications.
Ms. Varney asked why there were two different landscape plans included, and Mr.
Raab explained that he had two submissions from two different firms. He indicated
that he intended to go with the plan from duPont Design Group. Ms. Varney noted
that there was an error in the mitigation note, which stated that mitigation was at
the rate of 1:2. However, mitigation for the trees removed without permit would be
at the rate of 1:1. She also suggested that the three palms proposed to be planted
in the 12' square area on the courtyard side of the property would most likely
damage the opposite Oak.
Mr. Thompson provided the board with an overview of the existing conditions per
the original survey, and described how the palms proposed to be transported to the
front (seaward) side of the house, given the narrow passage.
Page 7 of 9
6 JO 8 abed
•uol;e6141w ;o uonemj!Jew jo asodind ay;ao,j paj!wgnsaa
pue paalnbaa s;unowe pue sapeds a;eladoadde ay; pa0a' o; paslwaa
aq pinoys ueld adempue! ayl •swied leges „ST-T PUe '.,9T-T ',,ST-Z '„ET-T
'„ZT-T :uMowlun „6-T 'ao!aa;xe ay; wOJJ 'pue swied iegeS „6T-T PUe
-T '„ST-£ '„ZT-£ '„OT-E 'ao!aa;u! ay; woa; 'papnpu! saga; asoyl •uol;e3ol
;uoajuea3o ay; y;!M aigl;edwoD salads jo „gt7 jo !e;o; e aoj ';!waad
jo pjauaq ;noy;lM 800Z u! pawowaa saga; ay; o; pa!idde aq pinoys (T:T)
uo!;elolw Jo uo! eaao3 aoj pa3Pads se uo!;e6l;!w 'uol;lppe uI •wied leges
„ZT-T Pue („OT aldlaq) „0£-T '„ST-T '„OT-T „8-T 'aolaa;xa ay; woa;
'pue :e!lou6eW „OT-T pue ' e0 UT algnoP) „tiZ-T ',2T-Z '„s-t' .swied
leges „VT-T '„ZT-Z 'ao!aa;u! ay; woij 'papnlau! saaa; asogj •spooMpaey
ao/pue sle0 30 „5•£b y;lM uoge6!;!w u! 6ul;lnsaa pue '088Z£000
-90 Mil 1 uuad uo pa;s!l se '900Z u! l.inoD azaaae max) 'KZ ;e Pa;e)oi
/ipadoad ay; woaj pawowaa saaa; ay; o; ;uawssasse (Z:T) uo!;e6!4!w
paepue;s ay; Aidde paeo8 ay; ;ey; pa/tow AauaeA aloaeD :NOIlOW
•ueld adeaspuel 0141 to uols!naa 041 u! pie of salaads lueaalo1-1g6noap
pue -11es 6ulgsl1 suolleallgnd 3n to sa!doa wig ane6 112H •sW pue 'ewe 0111 aol
saalola pooh aq mom spoonnpael le14M pa)lse qeei •JN •spoonnpael JO s)120 aa1110
pm pale6l11w aq lsnw s)Ie0 to lenowaa 12141 pue 'swied OaaM ueld adeaspuel 041 uo
saoa1 0141 to Ile 1e11 16nog1 palou AaweA •sinl -paa!nbaa AIlenlae seen i21nn o1 aasola
UMOp aagwnu 0141 6upq pue swied all g11nn sanss! 0141 ssaappe o1 6upq o1 pas!naa
aq pinoa ueld adeaspuel 0141 'sn141 •„OST salealsuowap ueld adeaspue! AaeulwllOad
0141 pue „S76 aq pinonn anp uol4e6giw !elol ay} legl uall palou uosdwoll ai i
'1JJJ all Jo pJemeas ewe 0141 woal sienowaa 00a1 800Z 014101 anp [walsAsoaa aunp
0141 o1 aiglledwa saoods e lo] „gt aa144oue pue 'asnol all to luudlooJ 0141 woal
AIlsow 'slenowaa awl 900Z 014101 anp spoonnpJeq JO )120 to „S-£v 6u!lou 'hays)Iaonn
uollebg1w 0141 woal salll21 all pew Assaug6negs "sN •11waad Mau 0141 aapun
sluawaalnbaa uolle6g1w Ile IsII pue 088Z£000-90 33211 p1OA pinom als '90/SZ/OT
pOJ!dxa AIlealulaal liwiad sno!AOad 0141 asneaaq pue 'anp uogebg1w !elol 6uppeal
u! /1P!Idwls Jo ales all aol 12111 pies II2H 'sW "800Z pUe 900Z gloq u! panowaa
saaal all aol palunoaae 1! 1211 6u!Tou 'laals)$aonn uol126!1!w 0141 paMa!naa paeog 0141
•a6ueals seen 11 12141
luawaaa6e u! pappou saagwaw pieog •walsAs aunp 0141 ul saaues!nu pwap!suoa
we swied 1211 d34 woad 4uawale1s all Aq paaapllnnaq 1111s seen ays 12141 p!es pao l
•s j -A1Jadoad Jag uo ellou6eN 0111 11!M aaalaalu! mom 11 12141 waauoa 6u!ssaadxa
'au!! Alaadoad wallnos all o1 /l!wlxoad asola ul wled leges 2 jo luawaaeld
044 palou pue 'paeAlanoa 0141 01 luaae[pe Oaenbs ,ZT 041 u! swied 0111 6ulpae60a
peg AaweA •SN sluawwoa 0141 lllnn paaanauoa '1anoJ azaaag ueaa0 68E? 'pod ulnnd
•suo!lsanb
JO sluawwoa Aue peg aauMo Alaodoad luaaecpe 0141 J! pa)lse Assaul6nels •sN
pieog uoge vasuoj as ij aya p 6ugaaW Je/n6a8 8002 'jT Aeti/eqj jo saanuIW
Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board
SECOND: Brea Paul seconded the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous, 4-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
■ None
6. REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
a. REPORTS: No reports were given.
b. ANNOUNCEMENTS: No announcements were made.
c. MISCELLANEOUS: No miscellaneous items were discussed
7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Jim McCue moved to adjourn, Carole Varney offered a second,
and the meeting was adjourned by Chair Shaughnessy at 9:45 pm.
114 5hqvilitite4..(4-7c, 1, i3fos?
SIGNED: Maureen Shaughnessy, air date
A4"
ATTE : Erika Hall, Staff Planner/TPO Administrator
Page 9 of 9