Clearwater board grants homeowner'appeal to move or replace live oak at Marlington Way, 5-2

The Clearwater Community Development Board voted 5-2 on Jan. 20 to grant an appeal filed by homeowner James Brzicki to modify the city'issued denial of a tree-removal permit for a live oak at 1934 Marlington Way. The board instructed staff to draft conditions for final approval that would allow the tree to be relocated on the property or, if not relocated, replaced with an equivalent shade tree.

The appeal challenged a denial that had been issued under the city's land-development code. Planning staff argued the tree was healthy, planted in accordance with approved landscape and site plans, and that removal would not meet the three findings required under CDC section 4-504(b) to overturn a denial. Staff cited ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) assessment standards and recommended mitigation alternatives including root barriers, root pruning, or, as a last resort, replacement with a shade tree.

The appellant, James Brzicki, told the board he and other neighbors have noticed sidewalk and driveway uplift (he estimated roughly a half- to three-quarters-inch in places) and said the condition creates a potential trip hazard and liability for homeowners. "It's a trip hazard," Brzicki said. He urged the board to approve the appeal so the homeowners association could begin a neighborhood re-landscape plan and avoid larger replacement costs down the road.

Several public commenters and HOA representatives echoed concerns about buckling sidewalks and predicted broader infrastructure impacts if the trees are left unmanaged. Planning staff and the city's arborist warned that removing mature shade trees citywide would erode the urban canopy and said relocation is technically possible but often costly and risky for tree survival. Staff noted that mitigation funds and fee-in-lieu mechanisms typically apply in construction-related replacement cases, not straightforward permit removals.

Board members debated the evidentiary record for overturning the denial. Legal counsel reminded members that, because this was a quasi-judicial appeal, the burden for meeting CDC section 4-504(b)''three specific findings''rests with the applicant and must be supported by substantial competent evidence in the hearing record. Several board members said they believed the applicant had not introduced independent expert evidence to rebut the city's findings but nevertheless supported a conditional approval to allow the HOA to pursue relocation or a replacement shade-tree solution.

An unidentified board member moved to grant the appeal (citing CDC —7 4-504(b)) and directed staff to prepare a list of conditions that could include relocation of the subject live oak or replacement with a comparable shade tree on the property; the motion carried in a roll-call vote, 5-2. The clerk read votes as: Member Adjanele (Aye), Member Heinrichs (Nay), Member Chanal (Aye), Member Haap (Aye), Member Butzicus (Nay), Member Park (Aye), Member Master Serio (Aye). The board asked staff to prepare an order and to return final conditions for action at the next meeting.

The board discussed penalties and compliance risks: staff stated the city'set fines for unpermitted removal at $48 per inch of trunk diameter and noted that code enforcement remedies may exceed that amount depending on the circumstances. The record shows the tree in question was described in testimony as about nine inches in diameter and that replacement with a new shade tree would still be required if removal were approved.

What happens next: staff will prepare the conditions of approval and a formal order reflecting the board's motion and present them at the board's next meeting for final action.