STARKE, FL - Developers who take down more trees in the city of Starke than they can replace will pay into a tree mitigation fund the city is establishing by ordinance. City Engineer Gary Sneddon of Stone, Joca and Associates said in the past developers who did not have enough land left to add back trees they've removed during construction would simply request a variance from the city board of adjustment, essentially circumventing the requirements of the existing tree ordinance. Also, permitting requirements under the current ordinance are unclear, he said.
A proposed ordinance clarifies the process. Permits will be required for the removal of protected trees, except on single-family residential properties. Originally, they, too, were included in the ordinance, but commissioners raised objections.
Commissioner Carolyn Spooner didn't agree with requiring permits of residential property owners as long as they took responsibility for clearing the trees they remove, and Mayor Travis Woods and Commissioner Wilbur Waters expressed similar concerns. The city's code enforcement officer, George Jarosik, disagreed, citing a case where a homeowner removed three trees, one 4 feet in diameter. He said requiring permits would keep "some people from going nuts."
"If we were to let everyone in the city do that, pretty soon we're going to have no trees," Jarosik said.
Sneddon said requiring a permit could also prevent fistfights between property owners when the tree to be removed sits on the property line. In that case, approval from both property owners would be required. It was also argued that inspections prior to tree removal could help protect city utility lines.
Spooner countered that it seems like when specific situations pose problems, a solution is designed that impacts everyone, but Sneddon said he believes that language contained in the current ordinance pertaining to protected trees already applies to residential cases. Still most commissioners agreed single-family residences should be excluded from the permit requirements in the new ordinance. "If it (the tree) is clearly on my property and not interfering with somebody else's, leave me alone," Spooner said.
It really isn't situations on individual residential properties that pose most of the problems, Operations Manager Ricky Thompson said. The issue really is tree removal during multifamily residential or commercial development when trees are not or cannot be replaced according to code. That is why the proposed ordinance creates a fund that developers will pay into when they cannot meet the mitigation requirements of the tree ordinance. Land cleared for a multifamily housing development on Thomas Street that never happened was one example given. A permit was never sought, and now mitigation doesn't seem likely. The construction of Arby's is another example. According to Woods, the site plan contained existing trees that have since been removed, and the commission wants the developer to pay for that through the proposed mitigation fund.
A committee would be established to designate how money in that fund should be spent, including planting trees on public property, purchasing land to plant trees, maintaining existing trees and providing education about trees. Initially, the funds could target downtown beautification. As required now, applications for tree removal permits will contain a survey showing the location and identities of trees being removed, relocated and retained and a list of trees by type and size that summarizes the applicant's removal and replacement proposal, including a statement explaining why any protected tree is to be removed or relocated. It will also show the location of proposed buildings and site improvements, and the orientation shall be arranged so as to preserve the maximum number of trees possible.
Protected trees are native trees with a trunk that is a minimum of 8 inches in diameter at breast height, or with multiple trunks that includes at least one trunk with a minimum diameter of 6 inches and with trunks that have an aggregate diameter of 12 inches. Some trees are excluded, including chinaberries, camphors and Chinese tallows. There was a possibility of adding pines and palms to the exemption list, but the commission rejected that idea as well.
Inspections prior to tree removal, during construction and following landscaping will be conducted. The current mitigation formula requires that for every inch in diameter of trees lost, the developer must replace one-third of that amount. The commission is raising that to an inch-for-inch requirement, meaning that every inch of tree width lost must be mitigated. Protected trees on the site that are preserved can be used toward meeting the mitigation requirement. Otherwise they must be replaced or paid for.
No application fee and no replacement will be required for permits to remove protected trees that are dead, diseased or deteriorated or those with potential for damaging property. Changes will be made to the proposed ordinance before it is brought back to the commission for approval.
Source: Zwire.com