Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reduces tree‑violation penalty after dispute over code timing; developer blamed contractor
Summary
After a contested appeal over unpermitted tree removals in Wekiva Springs Cove, the Orange County BCC upheld the DRC finding of violation and voted 4–3 to reduce the mitigation/penalty to $40,916 (or replanting 386 inches) citing hardship and contractor failures; staff will expedite required restoration plan review.
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday upheld a zoning enforcement action that found unpermitted removal of protected trees in a Wekiva Springs subdivision, then voted 4–3 to reduce the dollar penalty and require mitigation measures tied to the earlier code.
Zoning staff told the board that, on inspection, 20 preserved trees totaling roughly 233 caliper inches had been removed from an open‑space tract despite being shown as preserved on the approved preliminary subdivision plan (PSP). Under the county’s updated tree protection ordinance (effective March 15, 2024), the mitigation calculation increased; staff said the full measure of new‑code penalties would equate to about $74,094 or replanting 699 caliper inches at a 3:1 mitigation ratio.
The property owner’s representatives said the removals occurred in 2021 under the earlier tree code, before the 2024 revisions, and argued the applicant should be measured under the standards in force at that time. They also blamed a prior site contractor for exceeding the scope of clearing and said the owner had pursued corrective steps after discovering the removals. The applicant asked the board to use its authority to reduce the penalty or apply the earlier code.
The board first voted unanimously to uphold the DRC’s decision and the zoning manager’s notice of violation. On the question of penalty, commissioners debated enforcement, fairness and precedent. After multiple motions, a majority (four commissioners) voted to require mitigation consistent with the earlier calculation: $40,916 in tree‑replacement value or replanting 386 caliper inches on‑site, or a combination of replacement and payment. The motion included a direction that the decision not be treated as precedent for future cases.
County staff explained the next steps: the applicant must submit a restoration/mitigation plan to the zoning manager for approval and the county will expedite review at the permit level; staff advised that revisions to the subdivision permit would be processed to finalize outstanding construction inspections once mitigation is agreed and documented.
Applicant counsel and the property owner said they were seeking closure to preserve a pending property sale and avoid further delay. Commissioners and staff emphasized that the code will apply going forward and urged applicants and developers to update PSP documentation promptly when site conditions change.
