Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables proposed changes to flexible‑setback tree protections after initial review
Summary
Staff presented a first reading of changes to flexible‑setback rules to limit which trees qualify for protection, require ISA‑certified arborist reports, and consider clustered trees; the board asked for more vetting and tabled the ordinance for further edits and outreach.
At a first reading on Nov. 18 the City of St. Augustine Beach Planning & Zoning Board reviewed proposed amendments to flexible‑setback rules intended to protect trees while clarifying how applicants demonstrate tree preservation.
Staff proposed moving from a simple DBH‑threshold rule (previously any tree 8 inches or greater) to a defined tree list (modeled on the City of St. Augustine list) that would include minimum and maximum DBH ranges for specific species. The draft would also require an ISA‑certified arborist or Florida‑licensed landscape architect report describing species, size, age, health, and the minimum distance from the proposed structure needed to preserve tree health. Staff noted an emailed comment from Craig Thompson suggesting addition of locally native or potentially endangered species and allowing clusters of trees to qualify when combined DBH exceeds 36 inches.
Jennifer Thompson, planning staff, characterized the draft as a preliminary first reading and said the board could request edits or return it next month after staff revisions and outreach. Board members asked for clearer guidance on what should be included in the arborist report (for example, basic construction descriptions such as stem wall versus slab‑on‑grade and anticipated fill) and whether the draft should explicitly incorporate the city’s existing tree protection standards referenced in chapter 5 of the land development code. Several board members also urged staff to vet “possibly endangered” species suggestions with an arborist rather than rely on unvetted internet references.
After discussion the board voted to table the draft to the next meeting so staff could incorporate suggested edits, consider adding species or cluster rules, and clarify submission requirements for arborist reports.
