|
Home
Up
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
| |
Tree Ordinance page:
Actual Ordinance
Click here (this a pdf file;
If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader, get one here.)
- 15 Jan 08
County Commission puts head in sand
The BOCC last night
killed the tree protection ordinance!
Maryanne Marshall,
Tom Branan. Jim Higginbotham, Barry Holloway all voted to remove the tree
protection section of the land development code from consideration.
(Remember that when these people come up for reelection).
Mike Boyle, one of
the architects of the code, and the only commissioner to oppose removal of
the tree protection section, became ill after the vote and left the
commission meeting.
Protections for
wetlands, turtles and landscaping requirements will be the ONLY sections to
be considered at the Jan. 28 public hearing.
There was only one
speaker supporting the proposal. None of the 30-some people who supported
the code at the Planning & Zoning Board last month spoke and attendance was
sparse and dominated by west siders who objected to the government telling
them what they could do with their property.
There was strong
opposition from the West side, from a lawyer representing developers and
real estate interests, and from Tom Ford of the Planning & Zoning Board.
Commissioners said
the tree protection section should be revised and brought back at a later
date.
In
the meantime, clear-cutting of land along A1A and other roads will continue,
our lifestyle will change, our property values diminish!
_______________**__________________
- 01 May 06 City plants a tree
at Central Park for Arbor Day
(Click on photo to enlarge)
- 28 Apr 06 What City Tree Ordinance?
What Wetlands Buffer?
(Click on photo to enlarge)
|
|
|
|
picture was taken standing on the southern shoulder of Jasmine facing south.
|
|
|
- 14 Oct 05 Cape Sound Development
on Sadler
|
Last flight
out
News-Leader 10/14/05
While the city makes its ill-fated
gesture towards following rules and regulations, the
Cape Sound development bulldozers have cleared land all
the way up to the back yards of Talbot and Cumberland
Court. No buffer at all. No more oaks and brush, nothing
but bare dirt to chain link. Sickening.
The bulldozer noise went on until after dark, during
Tropical Storm Tammy and all during the rain the next
Wednesday night.
It is lovely to listen to rain on the roof at 7 a.m.
with the elegant intrusion of back-up beepers blasting
on heavy equipment. I guess we have no right to have
quality of life. We are the middle class and have no
voice with the government.
Only thing is, when the nuevo-conservatives turn around
during their pious parade of wealth, they will soon see
not one person behind them because they have wiped out
their entire army, their own countrymen. I believe it
was called the fall of Rome at one time.
We were seeing all kinds of migratory birds in our yard
and now none since the bulldozers. I don't blame them
for leaving. If I could live as light as they do I'd
leave as well.
Sherry Garbarini,
Fernandina Beach |
|
|
- 15 Mar 05 Tree Ordinance
goes to PAB for comment and inclusion of suggestions from public
City Tree Ordinance:
In 2001, the City Commission passed a new tree ordinance
with the stated objective that There shall be no net loss of trees
within the city upon adoption of this article. This objective
clearly states that if a tree is removed, it will be relocated/replaced within
the city. Under the definitions contained in the ordinance, a tree is
“…a woody plant with an erect trunk…being a diameter at breast high of three
inches and overall height of 12 feet.”
Every property owner is required to apply for a tree
removal permit in order to remove a tree from their property. If the tree is
located inside or within 5’ of the building footprint or is damaged or diseased,
there is no fee paid; but a permit must still be obtained. The owner is
required to submit documentation as part of the application process that
includes:
·
Completed application form
·
Justification for the removal of the tree(s)
·
A dated and scaled site plan showing:
o
The location of all trees and their species
o
Footprint of all existing and proposed structures
o
Indication of trees to be removed and trees to be retained
o
Grade changes that might adversely impact the trees
o
A replacement and replanting plan showing the location and
specification of all replacement trees
·
The required fees
The replacement/replanting plan requires that The
applicant shall replace each tree with a native tree or trees having a minimum
diameter at breast height
(DBH) of three
inches to the extent that the combined DBH of the replacement trees equals the
combined DBH of all removed trees. Replacement of native trees must be of the
same species unless otherwise approved by the administrative official.
This is the crux of ordinance to insure the overall objective of "...no
net loss of trees within the city..." is achieved.
Unfortunately, the City has been seriously remiss in its
enforcement of this requirement resulting in the loss of thousand of trees since
the enactment of this ordinance. CFOF is making it a priority issue for the
City to begin enforcing this ordinance.
_________**_________
-
20 Jan 05
Update
The City and County Commissioners will be meeting
on Jan. 25th to discuss a unified tree ordinance. CFOF has urged
the City not to weaken their existing ordinance; as the County’s ordinance
(only covering the unincorporated portion of Amelia Island) is significantly
more lenient. A comparison of the two was prepared by CFOF and can be
viewed,click: Tree
Ordinance
Amelia Green Update (Jan. 24, 2005)
CFOF continues to work with the homeowners in the
Lakewood subdivision to force Finlay Construction to adhere to the Court
Order for their tree clearing to be in compliance with the City’s tree
ordinance. As of this date, Finlay has still not provided the City with a
tree replacement plan as required under their permit. For this reason, the
City had previously issued a Stop Order permit but it was not being fully
enforced. After a meeting between CFOF and the Building Dept. on Jan. 21st,
the Building Dept. issued a new Stop Order preventing ALL construction
activity at the site until the Stop Order was lifted by the Planning
Department.
_____________**______________
Nassau County and City
of Fernandina Beach Tree Ordinances
Summarized by Concerned Friends of
Fernandina
Last Revised: January 3, 2005
Component
|
Nassau County |
Fernandina Beach
|
|
Effective Date |
November 10, 2003 |
December 4, 2001 |
|
Code Section |
37. Tree Protection |
Article VIII. Tree Protection, Section 110. |
|
Area Covered |
Unincorporated portion of Amelia Island |
All property within the City limits |
|
Covered Tree Species |
Oaks; Magnolias |
All trees except Nuisance tree: ‘protected tree’
defined as being at least 5” diameter at breast height (DBH) |
|
Properties Included |
Type IV Developments (10 or more building units;
Non-residential 35,000 sq. ft or larger; PUD) |
All properties, regardless of current level of
development |
|
Exclusions |
·
Agriculture or tree nursery usage
·
Dead, diseased or trees representing a hazard
·
Utility right of ways
·
Class IV developments having an existing structure as of
the adoption date |
·
Agriculture or tree nursery usage
·
Damaged or hazardous trees following a declared emergency
·
Minor maintenance
Permits are required, but no fee is assessed for
the following:
·
Any tree other than a ‘protected’ or ‘heritage’ tree
·
Dead, diseased or trees representing a hazard
·
Utility right of ways
·
Trees, other than ‘heritage’ trees located within the
construction area extended to 5’ when construction has been properly
authorized |
General Process
|
·
Owner must submit tree inventory and retention/landscape
plan to the Development Review Committee before any development activity
·
Owner must make every effort to save oak & magnolia trees
24” DBH or larger
·
Oak & magnolia tree removal would be permitted if:
- Restricts the opening of a street;
- Restricts public utility installation or
drainage facilities;
- Restricts vehicular access;
- Restricts reasonable use of the property;
- Constitutes a potential life/property hazard;
- Tree is dead, in poor health or diseased where
the disease may spread; or,
- Thinning of up to 25% of the trees in dense
locations
·
Approved site plan identifies the trees to be removed;
protection methods; and, tree replacement requirements
|
·
Owner or authorized agent must submit signed, application
for tree removal to the Department of Community Development
·
If development activity is to take place within 12 months,
detailed information (see next section) must accompany the permit
application, including a tree replacement plan
·
Tree removal application reviewed by designated official
using a field check or other evidence to confirm the information
presented by the applicant
·
The official will determine the species, size and
condition of each tree to be removed
·
The official will authorize the permit after applicant has
agreed in writing to the conditions appropriate for the particular plan
·
Permit must be posted at the property
·
Permits will expire one year from the date of issuance |
|
Submission Requirements |
·
Submission of a tree inventory and tree retention/
landscape plan as part of standard site review process
o
Submission of streetscape plan containing tree retention
and landscaping
o
Scaled drawing showing tree locations, size and species
within areas of construction; as well as property boundaries, existing
and proposed structures and surrounding road system |
·
If development activity is to take place within 12 months,
plans must accompany the permit application a plan having the following
components:
- Legal description of property;
- Name & address of property owner;
- Current zoning;
- Citation of ordinance section justifying
removal;
- Appropriate fee
·
Site plan to scale including the following:
- Locational footprint of all proposed and
existing structures;
- Designation of trees to be retained, trees to
be removed, diseased trees, trees compromising ingress/egress safety
and protection barriers;
- Grade changes;
|
|
Tree Replacement Calculations and Conditions |
·
If an Oak or Magnolia tree is removed, it must be replaced
as follows:
o
If tree less than 24” DBH, 1 tree for 1 tree
o
If larger than 24” DBH, one inch DBH for 1 DBH
·
Replacement trees must be minimum of 3” DBH, 10’ tall and
branch spread 5’ wide
·
Replacement trees to be planted on-site or on public
property subject to Commissioner approval |
·
If protected tree is destroyed, it will be replaced with a
native tree with a minimum DBH of 3” where the combined DBH of the
replacement trees equals the combined DBH of all removed trees
·
If protected tree is relocated, will be moved to another
location in the City approved by city official
·
Native trees must be replaced with same species
·
Trees shall be kept alive for one year; dead trees must be
replaced within 30 days of notification or before Certificate of
Occupancy is issued |
Penalties
|
·
If trees removed without an approved plan, tree
replacement will be two times the total DBH of all the protected trees |
·
Any violation will result in a civil citation, issued a
stop work notice and a notice to submit a restoration plan
·
Maximum penalty of $500 and/or imprisonment up to 60 days
per violation
·
Restoration plan must be submitted within 30 days or a
double fine will result
·
It tree trunks have been destroyed, city official will
make determination of size and type of replacement trees based upon any
available information
·
If the City official determines a restoration plan will
not replace the quality or screening function of the removed trees, the
following fines may be assessed:
o
$125 per DBH inch for each tree not in designated
environmentally sensitive area (wetland, coastal upland protection zone,
etc.)
o
$250 per DBH inch for each tree in a designated
environmentally sensitive area
o
$12,500 for each heritage tree removed |
|
Tree Protection Procedures |
·
Trees to be removed marked with red flag
·
Barricade around saved trees until final grading
·
Permits can be revoked if protective measures are not
used/maintained during construction |
·
Trees to be protected during all phases of site
preparation and construction with barrier with minimum radius of 6’ from
the base of the trip up to maximum distance of the drip line; at least
3’ high
·
Performance bond may be required |
|
Special Requirements |
·
Permits can be revoked if protective measures are not
used/maintained during construction
·
Non-residential developments in excess of 35,000 sq. ft.
must have one Oak or Magnolia tree for every 5,000 sq. ft. of building
area
o
Credit of 1:1 for each Oak or Magnolia retained
o
Replacement trees must be minimum of 3” DBH, 10’ tall and
branch spread 5’ wide |
·
Heritage tree is defined as a ‘native tree designated as
irreplaceable by the City… due to its size, age, historic, aesthetic, or
cultural significance…”
o
Minimum DBH of 36”
o
Tree is proven to be part of the City’s history or culture
o
Trees should (not required) be marked with advisement of
removal/damage penalty
o
City Clerk will maintain a list of all Heritage trees |
|
Enforcement Responsibility |
Planning and Zoning Department responsible for
administration; Code Enforcement responsible for enforcement |
Not specified |
Amelia Green project
This lack of enforcement is no more evident than in the
Amelia Green development underway just south of the intersection of Sadler
Road and Will Hardee (Citrona). Our best understanding of the facts and
development of this situation are described below:
In Nov. 2003, the developer of this property, Finlay
Construction, applied for a tree removal permit stating that there were only 4
trees covered by the City’s tree ordinance in this 5+ acre tract of land.
Unfortunately, the City accepted this application without performing a
verification as required by the ordinance. As you can see from the aerial
photograph of this property before it was clear-cut, this was a tract of land
with a dense tree canopy.
This serious error first came to light when the developer
sought to remove additional trees in a 50’ wide area on the southern edge of the
property backing up to homes in the Lakewood Subdivision. The City had
previously designated this 50’ buffer zone to be an ‘undisturbed natural buffer”
and recorded it as an easement on the property. The developer claimed that the
easement was illegal and sued the City, the Lakewood Homeowners Association and
some of the individual homeowners whose property abutted the disputed area.
After realizing legal fees of more than $3,000 by the Homeowners Association, as
well as legal expenses by the individuals, all the parties agreed to a mediated
settlement that permitted Finlay to remove trees within the first 15’ of the
buffer, but such removal had to be in compliance with the City’s tree
ordinance.
After efforts to get the City to enforce the ordinance met
with no success, CFOF was requested to get involved and provide assistance.
With the support of Commissioner Walker and Mayor Roland, meetings have been
held with City officials. In order to properly document the remaining trees,
the City paid $2,720 to have a tree survey done of the remaining buffer zones
showing that there were approximately 300 trees with diameters greater than 5”.
Assuming this same density across the remainder of the property that was
clear-cut, it would appear that approximately 1,000 – 1,400 protected trees have
been removed. The City sent Finlay a letter on Nov. 3, 2004 stating they were
in violation and giving them a deadline of Nov. 15th to comply.
After no response, the City issued another letter on Nov. 30th and
giving them a second deadline of Dec. 3rd. After not receiving a
satisfactory replacement plan, the City issued a Stop Order on the worksite on
Dec. 16th. As of this update, this prohibition against any work at
the property is still in effect.
CFOF understands from City staff that Finlay Construction
plans to appeal to the City Commission, as they are entitled to do by the
ordinance, for some form of relief from the replacement requirements now
contending that the replacement would be too expensive. CFOF believes that not
only should Finlay be held responsible for replacing the trees removed from the
buffer zone; but also they should be held accountable for their
misrepresentation on their original application when they stated there were only
4 trees required to be replaced.
Amelia Green: March 1999 (USGS Sat. Photo)
Before defoliation:
22 Dec 04 Why can't
city enforce its codes?
|
from
News-Leader THE NO SPIN ZONE -- By Ronnie
Sapp
Very early in life, one learns the difference between
the sins of commission, things done, and omission,
things ignored. The lesson learned is that both can get
you in trouble. Governments, like people, sometimes
strive mightily to avoid the former, while hoping the
latter goes unnoticed. It rarely does.
At the outset, let me say with fervency that this column
is not intended to be an indictment of any one person or
group. These few words should not be interpreted as
simply a denigration of the performance of some city
staff, but rather a call to action; a call for clear,
and most of all, consistent enforcement of city
ordinances, codes, rules and regulations. Also, this is
a call for the reinstatement, at least in my opinion, of
a much needed position, that of community development
director.
That position was discarded two years ago and its duties
and responsibilities absorbed by the city manager, who,
as directed by charter, is ultimately responsible for
the enforcement of all city ordinances, rules and codes.
But that isn't happening. The tree ordinance is not
being enforced, the sign ordinance is being treated as
though it didn't exist and the relatively simple task of
protecting public beach accesses has become unbelievably
complex and entangled.
eed evidence? Consider the trials
and tribulations of the residents of Lakewood
subdivision and the efforts made by their homeowners
association to get the city to enforce the tree
ordinance.
Not long ago, a developer - city permit in hand -
clearcut over 1,000 trees on property just north of the
subdivision. The developer had provided no adequate tree
survey, as called for by the ordinance, nor had a
re-planting proposal been furnished, also required by
ordinance. So insufficient was the developer's tree
survey that only four trees, they said, among the
1,000-plus were worthy of protection.
The city, without due diligence, without even inspecting
the property, agreed. Sins of omission, certainly.
Later, permission was sought to cut the 50-foot buffer,
made up of approximately 300 trees, separating the
project from the Lakewood subdivision. Still adamant,
the homeowners association objected.
The city, seemingly oblivious to the requirements of the
tree ordinance, asked the association to "negotiate"
with the developer as to just how many trees they, the
homeowners, were willing to give up. The city, it
appeared, wanted to involve the association in its
appeasement plan, sort of ordinance neglect-by-proxy.
Currently, the developer has
provided no tree survey of the buffer and no re-planting
plan. In fact, and you need to read this carefully, the
only tree survey of the buffer property was done by the
city, yes, the city. City taxpayers paid about $2,700
for a tree survey that, according to the ordinance,
should have been provided by the developers.
Bottom line? Well, remember, the goal of the tree
protection ordinance was no net loss of trees within the
city of Fernandina Beach. No net loss? How about more
than 1,000 lost trees on this project alone!
That unfortunate story is much the same when it comes to
the city's historic district. There is an ordinance that
prevents the demolition of houses within the district
without the approval of the Historic District Council.
Yet we read of two houses razed by the Port without that
necessary approval. Just a brief glance at a map of the
historic district, just a cursory glimpse should have
sent up red flags alerting the staff that, hey,
something's amiss. No brief glance, no cursory glimpse,
no red flags, no more houses.
The sign ordinance also has been "Christmas storied."
You know, that scene in a "Christmas Story," when Flick
gets his tongue stuck on the frozen flagpole and can't
go back to class after recess. The teacher asks,
"Where's Flick?" and Ralphie says, "Flick, Flick who?"
Well, at code enforcement someone must ask, "Sign
ordinance, what sign ordinance?" The sign ordinance has
been "Christmas storied."
Just take a quick ride and notice how filled our
rights-of-way are, yard sales here, estate sales there;
50 percent off here, better sales there, all in
violation of the sign ordinance.
I know, this litter seems harmless to some, but the
underlying premise of the sign ordinance is that while a
single right-of-way sign might be quaint, a hundred
similar signs would trash a community. Thank goodness
for the sign ordinance.
Now, concerning the Ketch Courtyard beach access fiasco.
Wouldn't you think that fireworks would have to go off
in the minds of city staff when they examined plans for
a fence that would block public access to the beach?
After all, the public has been using that access for
about 19 years!
No fireworks, apart from the ones set off by the
citizens when they considered the possibility of losing
even one public beach access.
The pattern so evident here is clear and undeniable,
there is a lack of supervision and oversight relative to
the enforcement of city ordinances, codes, rules and
regulations.
The cure, it seems, is an unpalatable one, at least to
some, but necessary nonetheless. Bring back a
supervisory level position in the bureaucracy that is
city government, between the line positions, i.e., code
enforcement, planners, and the city manager. Bring back
the community development director. The citizens will be
the beneficiaries.
Ron Sapp served on the
Fernandina Beach City Commission for 21 years. His
column appears regularly.
|
|
|
Archives Click:(A)
Tree Ordinance
|
