1730 Ocean Grove Drive TREE08-00100011 Staff Report 02.22.2010 rev2February 22, 2010 regular meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Request by Jerrold & Rosanna Dixon to appeal assessment and obtain refund of
$3,919.50 charged for unmet mitigation, assessed as condition of issuance of Tree Removal Permit #08-
00100011.
SUBMITTED BY: Erika Hall
Principal Planner, Staff Liaison to Tree Conservation Board
DATE: February 11, 2010
BACKGROUND: The Tree Conservation Board (TCB) unanimously voted to approve a tree removal
application in conjunction with residential redevelopment of the property located at 1730 Ocean Grove Drive
on April 9, 2008. Permit issued on April 10, 2008 for the removal of 119 inches from the interior zone and 55
inches from the exterior zone, reflected the Board’s assessment of 27.5 inches of hardwoods as well as
mitigation criteria and procedures, per provisions of Chapter 23, Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation, in
effect at that time.
The Tree Administrator received numerous complaints from adjacent property owners once the tree removal
commenced, and upon inspection, found sufficient evidence that clearing activity had exceeded the scope of
the approved/issued permit and was possibly encroaching upon adjacent properties. TCB members were
advised at the April 23, 2008 meeting that the applicant had been advised to submit a revised tree survey and
re-appear before the Board to request amendment of the existing permit to account for additional trees
removed.
The Board heard from adjacent property owners and considered the revised tree survey at the May 14 and
May 28, 2008 meetings, finally voting to approve the applicant’s new request to removal all trees as shown on
that revised survey, from the property. Revised Permit issued on May 30, 2008 for the removal of 135 inches
from the interior zone and 224 inches from the exterior zone, reflected the Board’s revised assessment of
101.5 inches, with 94.5” being either oaks and/or hardwoods, per provisions of Chapter 23 in effect at that
time.
On the morning of December 28, 2009, the applicant applied to the Building Department for the Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) for the newly constructed residence on the subject property, and was advised by the Tree
Administrator that a landscape plan demonstrating accomplishment of the assessed mitigation had not been
provided and that the CO would not be released until that plan was reviewed and approved by Staff. The
applicant indicated that time was of the essence, as the property owners desired to close out the project before
year end, and that he would have the landscape architect contact Staff directly to meet this requirement.
Shortly thereafter the landscape architect called and reported that he had designed the landscape according to
the parameters set by his clients, and not the mitigation requirements assessed by the TCB, which he claimed
to be unaware of. Staff reiterated to both parties that the CO would not be released until a landscape plan
sufficiently demonstrating compliance with the mitigation assessed by the TCB was received, reviewed,
approved and field-verified.
The landscape architect delivered an updated as-built landscape plan at 4:30 pm on December 29, 2009, and
reminded Staff that the landscape was designed not to meet mitigation requirements but to compliment the
architecture of the structure, per the directions of his clients. As such, he indicated that he had provided a
“conversion table” and requested that Staff find the mitigation sufficient on this basis. Staff reviewed the
submitted as-built landscape plan in light of the mitigation assessed by the TCB and strictly applied
mitigation criteria which requires replacement of removed oaks with other oaks and/or hardwoods, and does
not allow credit for replacement with invasive/potentially invasive species. This resulted in a c alculation of
February 22, 2010 regular meeting
92 inches in unmet mitigation, which would require payment of $10,764.00 into the Tree Conservation Fund
(TCF). [Calculation 1]
As a second scenario, Staff then considered giving allowance for all hardwoods meeting minimum size
requirements (Oleander and Loquat) though not recommended by leading authorities and even listed as
potentially invasive. These allowances led to a calculation of 78 inches in unmet mitigation, which would
require payment of $9,126.00 into the TCF. [Calculation 2]
Finally, as a third scenario, Staff considered giving two substantial allowances. Credit was calculated for
100% of the Japanese Yew plantings, due in part to the University of Florida’s Department of Environmental
Horticulture’s recommendation of the that tree as an “outstanding” species for this area. Partial credit (50%)
was calculated for the Italian Cypress plantings because of their large mature height and potential for
providing some screening and shading in the clustered configuration in which they had been planted.
However, in this calculation, no allowance was given for the “shrubby, weak-wooded” or the potentially
invasive species. These allowances resulted in a calculation of 33.5 inches in unmet mitigation, which would
require payment of $3,919.50 into the TCF. [Calculation 3]
On the afternoon of December 30, 2009, Staff presented the applicant with an evaluation of the as-built
landscape plan in which the substantial allowances described in Calculation 3 were credited to the required
mitigation as set by the TCB as condition of the issued tree removal permit, as well as an invoice for payment
of the remaining unmet mitigation into the Tree Conservation Fund. The applicant accepted this assessment
as reasonable, presented payment to the Tree Conservation Fund, and was issued the CO by the Building
Department.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission may consider the following options.
1. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the TCB and revise mitigation credit allowed by Staff to reflect
the strictest application of the provisions of Chapter 23, such that no hardwood credit is given for
softwoods (Japanese Yew and Italian Cypress) planted. [Calculation 1] This option would require the
payment of an additional $6,844.50 (above the $3,919.50 already paid) into the TCF.
2. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the TCB and revise mitigation credit allowed by Staff to reflect
application of the provisions of Chapter 23, but with allowances for those non-recommended and
potentially invasive hardwoods that meet the minimum size requirements (Oleander and Loquat) planted.
[Calculation 2] This option would require payment of an additional $5,206.50 into the TCF.
3. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the TCB and mitigation credit as allowed by Staff upon review of
the as-built landscape plan provided by the property owners’ agent(s), thereby denying this appeal and
request for refund of $3,919.50 from the TCF. [Calculation 3]
ATTACHMENTS:
TCB Meeting Minutes: (A) March 26, 2008; (B) April 9, 2008; (D) April 23, 2008; (E) May
14, 2008; (F) May 28, 2008
Tree Removal Permits: (C) Original, April 10, 2008; (G) Revised, May 30, 2008
Mitigation Tables: (H) Landscape Architect’s recommendation; (I) Staff’s evaluation
BUDGET: Payment to the Tree Conservation Fund, Account Number 112-0000-366.00-00 per
above.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _________________