Loading...
12-11-02 vAGEI`~DA REGULAR MEETING OF TREE CONSERVATION BOARD D~~mb€~L~ 209 7:00 p,m. Cif .Hall-Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 2 R€co~nition of ~isitor~ 3. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of November 20, 2002 4. Old BusinG$s A. Tree Real A~plieation• lyor-rrr: Defe~ed- first ~gi~t-ar-y; ?~03 B. Tree Removal Applications: 1) 358.19` Street ~^ 5. New Business A. Tree Removal Applications:. 1) 50 Robert Street ' 2) 85 Simmons Road 3) 1860 Francis Avenue 4) 1420 Mayport Road 5) All of Block 8; Lot 4, Block 9; Lots 1-3, Block 22 and Block 23 (south. side of Church Road just east of Mayport Road) b. Reports and_Announceu~en~s 7. Adjournment All information related to these applications and full legal descriptions for the subject~roperties ark available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Building Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida.. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Tree Conservation Board wins respect_to any mater considered at the above meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, ma~-nee~ ta'ensure that a verbatim record ~x€the proceedings is made, ~vhieh record includes the ,. testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to atl hearing impaired persons: in accardance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach (904) 24?-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 not later than five days prior to the date of this meeting. MINUTES ®F TREE C4NSER~ATION BOARD December II, 2002 A regular meeting o€tlie Tree Conservation Board was held ~cdnesday, I~eeornber I I, Zf~~}Z in the City ~ztl Con€erence Room. 'Rresent were Bill Fermenter, Card Rockwood, Maureen Shaughnessy, Building ()I3ciai Don Ford and Susan Dunham. I. Call to girder Tl~ westing was called to order at ~: ()~, p, m. 2. Rect3gnition o~ Visitors Mr. made Qiszewski' o€ CPH Engineering introduced himsel€ and asked to make a brief statement to the Board. I3iscussion was held and the Board Member i3ennenter moved that the statement €rom CFA Engineering be moved to the end o€`the Agenda. t3oard .Member I~.ockwood seconded. the motion and the ;~~otion gassed by unanimous appro.=al. 3. Approval of Minutes of 1Vieetitt~ of ~overrber 24 2002 A motion rues made by Beard Member Rock~vrspti, 'seconded by Bayard Member Perm;,nter and_ aananiaaaoa~5ly carrieal to approve the iYleteextes off" flee Free Conservation i~Qartl meetiaag of Noveanber 20, 2fl02, as written. 4. Ia Busi~ss A. Tree Removal Application Form: Deferred until first meeting in January 2003. r.. $. Free Removal Applications: 1} 358 I9`" Street: Mr. ~eor~e Faslsalaris frartt Coppenbarger Homes irctraduced'himseiF Mr. l~aspalaris distribaited documents to the Board members. 1vlr. Yaspaaris outlined the ~`~-weep tim~,,frame for the permitting process to build the home at 358 I9~` Street. They received their ISenn3t oia sept~mber 2~, Z~fD2. nV#r. l}aspalaris clarified that Ms. MFargo Marshal was #~~ie owner o€the Iot, not Coppenbarger Homes. He st<~t~i that on September 23; 2t14L; the City called thhem advise that their building permit ~=as ready; they picked op #:he perrn~t ai:1 ~I~.,aro~ the It~t. l-Ie €utther stated that flee day after they cleared the lot, a stop work order ~~as posted. Mr. PaspaIaris ady~ised that he called Mr. Ford rvrso advised bleu that trey did not have pennission from the Tree Conservation Board to remove trees. Then, he said that he went to the Building Department, received a Tree Removal Application €onn, returned to the Iot and frlled out another application. Mr. Paspalars stated that a couple of days later, they. receive another Ietter from the 'Free Conservation Board advising them to submit another piece o€paper, which they did. Mr. Paspalaris refererrced: a s~tement from Lucas and Associates, who Mr. PaspaIaris st<zted was not associated a~=ith tl3em. ~e suggested that the Board read the second paragraph e# Mr. I~a~cas' Ietter. which states that to the-best of Mr. Lucas' recollection; that stated where the trees were located. In addition, Mr. Paspalaris explained that they were going to the c~pense of rt~oving flee swell so that additional trees do not have to be removed. IVir. Iyaspalaris sta#ed that during the thne€rame that it-took to receive the pcr~i#, sc~mec~ne should have in€ormed them that they: were required to have a tree permit. He stated that the City rvebsitc does not speci€y anythurg about a Tree Board permit, a~or does the checklist €roin the Building Department. Mr. Paspalaris stated that he felt they did not do anything to violate tine ordinance; they did. noting on purpose. Mzmxtes of Tree Cc~nrewirtic~rt ~3c~nf iJ ~c3~e~• 11, ~f~~2 Ptage 2 ,«~-" $oard Member Fermenter asked Mr: I'aspalaris if fie did"not know that the City had a `i ree Conservation Board whose approval was required prior to removal of trues. Mr. Paspalaris responded that he knew they were required to provide a tree survey, which- they did. He further stated that all the items on the checklist were satisfied. Board l~lernber iZockwood asked 1VTi-. I~aspalaris of he s~Tas the project manager for all" Cappenbarger homes. Mr. Paspalaris responded that he builds all custom pontes and this particular house is a custom home. He fiarther st<Zted that ``we have never done this ~e~tit you geEys before." T3eard Member Lockwood "advised that iri the industry, it was normal" procedure that a builder mitigate if trees are removed. She stated that she assumed that Mr. 1'aspalaris, being the project manager, would-know of this procedure. She further stated that she understood that the dczcumentatiorrdid-not clearly-specrf~thatCoppenbarg~tr"r~edottto-follow this procedure orelsc they would have. Mr. Faspalars stated that this was a fair statement. He iirther responded that the Only jurisdiction that he knew of that actually required a tree~clearing permit was that of St, John's Courriy. He stated that they build houses in five other counties and they have never had to go through this process before. Mr. Faspalaris explained that they had nothing concrete that stated they needed to meet with the ~1'iee Conservation l~oarct before they could remove trees. He further statec;tthat this would"never happen again and felt that since this Svcs such a long process, that something fell through the cracks. Board Member Permenter asked Building Official Ford what fife Trt;e Conservation Board could do at this time. Tuilding Clfficial f"ord advised that if was tha 'I"ree Conservation Board's ,~,. responsibility to enforce Section 23-17, which is the Tree t?rdinance. He stated that the Tree ordinance is very clear--that if trees are removed without a permit, then a fine is charged of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of land cleared. 1VIr. lion Coppenbarger introduced himself: He requested that the Board take into consideration the tree survey that was submitted before the trees were removed: ~e stated tl#at Mr. Lucas, who is a registered engineer, prepared the survey, the survey was submitted on time and the survey indicated that no protected trees were removed. Mr. Coppenbarger further stated that ignorance does not remove them from the law and they will abide by fhe law. He requested that the -Tree Conservation Board accept the survey. Building t)fficial Ford reminded the Board that it was their responsibility to verify surveys. He stated that the Board has a survey from an engineer who stated that this was what he saw on the property. 13uiTding (7fftcial Ford stated that the Board needed to determine if they were going to accept the survey and, 4f 13ot, the Board needed to determine the cleared-area of the rot audio set the mitigation on this figure. Board Member Shaughnessy asked if this survey was originally submitted on August 24. Building Official Ford responded that they have had several submittals. He stated that when the building permit application was submitted, it contained a blank `Free Removal Application form. Building Offiicial Ford advised that this usually indicates that nothing but small trees are on the lot. He advised that there was a lot of confizsion with regard to this application: 1) The application submitted was totally insufiieient for various reasons, i.e., structural problems, tree survey, etc.; 2) An outside architect reviewed these plans because over 15`1 sets ofplans were subntted on the same day as this submittal (February28, 2002). fln March 1, the new Florida Building Code tank effect which is part of the reason these plans took some time. Building C1ffi'icial Ford. advised that all records are on file with date stamps dates that Coppenbarger Homes was called and notified of insufficiency in the plans, and a checklist that I~liaaa~les o, f Tren. ~'ar~sesvaticatrBesarc~T 1~ecemher 11, 2(1(12 ~~e~ was prepared by the architect with ail the items-that were not completed.. I3tilding Ui~icial ~`orcl stated that the Board needed to decide if they were going to act;ept the survey°. Board Mea~~ber Per~nent€:r stated the Board normally rcvo<,vs the Iot to verify the aeetsraey of the-survey:.. Board Member Shaughnessy stated that they did review the lot from the first survey but it was confusu3g because one tree was two-thirds of the way on anotTier property and she could nflt lo~te the survey markers. Building Official Fare clarified that the second starvey submitted by Coppenbarger Humes indicated the cleared area of the lot. He pointed out to-the Board metrtbers that this survey was not to scale. Board I~lember Fermenter asked tuilding Clffical F'ard asked-for clarification on what would happen if Coppenbarger Homes did. not get a tree permit and the Board accepted the survey. Bttildin8 Official Ford,responded that in Section 23-17(8)(3), correction of violations, the ordinance states that they can pay the permit fee, trie total- caliper of inches of repracement trees shall equal the total caliper of trees protected by 144 percent. He stated that if"the survey shows no protected trees, there would not be any mitigation required.. However, the verification of tl~e survey is the question in this situation. Board Member Rockwood asked if the City has any documentation showing that this survey was subYr~tted~ Building Of~rcial Ford responded that it was submitted but not prior to the clearing of`the trees. fiuitding Ufhcial Irord stated that the Board needed to make a decision: either accept the survey or mitigate based on the cleared area of the Iot. Building Official Ford reminded the Board that their role was not to determine whether the survey was turned in on time, but whether or not Coppenbarger Homes has a legal survey that the Board can verify. Board Member Fermenter stated that they could not verify the survey because '~ they could not see the trees. Buildin8 Official Ford st<~tted that the ordinance clearly speaks to verifying the survey. He stated that the next option is to assess the cleared area. of the lot and the mitigation would be basecl on the cleared-area of the Iot; which is indicated on the second-'survey. He fiirther stated-that this was submitted as a scaled survey butthe lines were so bold and black that it was difficult to determine exactly the cleared area. A motion was made by Board Member t?ermenter and seconded by Board Member Rockwatrd~ to direst the Binding Official to assess the owners trf 35819th Street a one dollar {~1.(7t)j per square foot of cleared property. Building {3ff vial Nord clarified that this assessment was based on the survey submitted on December 2, 24(}2, indicating 4,554 feet of cleared area. The vote was salted and the motion passed by ainaniaiious approval. 5. _1Vew Business A. Tree.Bemoval Applications:. t 1 -4~ ;~r~be~. Str~.t;. I~x. C.tasg: Birk ~troduced tsfl~l#'-and acluis~rl tl~,.t ~ ga~~a~.~p ref faoy s~4i~5-~~?4~S~,.c11..T,~. mat, rlnxa~n ~11.1~,,}~t,~~rPrl mar..l~r~¢lt,,r'~PC:; ~.c#.at£~i t,~4„at the StL3~S'3*F?S a3'« ~I~,.e'kt #,.l??: cif. and could be measured. Board Member i'exmenter stated that thexe was only one protected tree, a b" oak. A motion was made by Board Member Permenter, seconded by Board Member Rockwood and unanimously carried to direct the Building Official to issue a permit fcir the reiiiaval of '`" a 6" five oak to be mitigated on site with an 8" oak. tLlinutes of Tree C'onservatian Bvarcl 13ecember 11, 2002 Page 4 2} SS Simmons Road: Mr. Craig Burkhart addressed this application. A motion was made by Board Member Rockwood, seconded by Beard Member Permenter and unanimously carried to direct the Building Official to issue a permit for the removal of a 26" pine and a ~4" pine to be mitigated on site with a lfi" pine and a 17" pine. 3} 1850 Francis Avenue: Mr. Craig Burkhart also addressed this application. Discussion was held with regard to the large gashes in the trees. Mr: Burkhart assured the Board-that the trees. would survive far one year. He fierther advised that they wottid like to remove 472" and the mitigation on site would be 23Ei:" Budding Official Ford suggested. that the :Board defer this stein until the ne~ct regular meeting to allow time for the Board members to re-walk the site. Mr. Burkhart requested permission to clear the right-of-way. A motion was made by Board Member Rockwood, seconded by Board Member Permenter and unanimously carried tl;at the B~aittng C3fliciai ttirect Beaches :Habitat to clear tie right-of--way only at 186Q Francis Avenue, leaving stumps for verification and to move this item to the neat Tree Conservation Board meeting. 4} I42U Mayport Road: Building Official Ford advised that Mr. Whalen was not in attendance but had sufficient mitigation on the property. A motion was made by Board Member Rockwood, seconded by Board Member Permenter and-unanimously carried to-direct_the:Buildsng Of#"~ciaito. issue a permit far the. removal of a 19" pig- a~td st JS.S" pare tt~ be mitigated with eight ~" oaks to be planted on the 15`x' ,~- Street west side of the property. 5} Ali of'Block 8; Lot 4, Block 9; Lots 1-3, Block ZZ and Block 23 (south side of Church Road just east of Mayport Road}: Mr. Jerry Hoey introduced himself Building Official Ford advised that he spent time at the Iot and felt that the engineer who prepared the survey did not understand whatwas a protected tree and mitigation requirements. He furd~ar advist~d #hathe believes the mitigation would be much Iess-than the engineer caIcuIated. Building Official Ford suggested that he determine the instigation sold bring a report to the Tree Conservatson Board. members. A motion was made by Board Member Rockwood, seconded by Board Member Permenter, and unanimously carried to direct the Building Official to issue a permit for the removal of trees to be mitigated with on-site trees per the report by the Buiidr`ng Of1cial to be brought to the next Tree Conservation Board meeting. 435 Atlantic Boulevard: The Board recognized Wade Olszewsks and Molly Price, engineers with CPH Engineers. Mr. Olszewski stated that they would appreciate an opportunity to make a statement to the Board. Ms. Price read the stateme~it. Mr. Olszewski stated that it was their fault that they did not understand. the process to follow with regard to removal of trees. He stated that they had submitted a fill set ofplans for the site plan review which hoc! included a tree survey. Building Official-Ford. stated that it was his understanding that CP'H Engineers would- tike same relief from the Board to keep-the project moving due to the tight time constraint of this project. ~" He stated that the owner is a franchisee and would lose a sum of money if the project were not completed in a certain time frame. Building Official Ford stated that CPH Engineers submitted a <i~Iirautes of'Iree C`arasezv~rl.~ac~rd. . I~eeemher I7. ZO(12 Pc~t~e S landscape plan and believes that CPH Engineers thoaight that if the approval of the Community Development Director was on the plans, then they could proceed, which is not correct. Building Official Ford- advised that several pre-construction meetings were held end, obviously, they were not clear on the process. I-Ic s#afed that"OPtI Engineers would: Yike to keep the project moving and come back to the Tree Oonservation Board to mitigate trees. He fiirther stated that a special called meeting could be held to determine if the project could continue but that it would have to be noticed for 24 hears prior to the meeting A motion was made by Board .Member R©ckwflod, seconded by Board Member Permenter, and unanimously carried that the Tree Conservation Board hold a special called meeting on December 13, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. tv determine future mitigation for 435 Atlantic Boulevard. b. Reports and Announcements David Owens introduced himself and stated that he has applied far a position on the Board. The Board members introduced themselves. 7. Ad,~aurament There being no Other business or discussion, the meeting was adjoiuned at 8:20 p.m. Maureen Shaughnessy .,