Delray Beach seeks rapid arborist report, will ask Lake Worth Drainage District to reconsider banyan removal
Loading...
Summary
After the Lake Worth Drainage District voted to remove a large banyan tree on the municipal golf course, Delray Beach commissioners directed staff to commission a rapid arborist risk assessment and prepare a motion for reconsideration; the commission will review the report on Feb. 24.
Delray Beach commissioners said Feb. 18 they will commission a fast arborist assessment and ask the Lake Worth Drainage District to reconsider its decision to remove a large banyan tree on the municipal golf course.
Mayor Thomas opened the special meeting saying the city had not had a full opportunity to present its evidence to the drainage district and that staff should try to preserve the 78‑year‑old tree. “I wanna try to figure out a way to save this tree,” he said. Public commenters and city staff urged exploring anchoring and mitigation measures rather than immediate removal.
Why it matters: the drainage district’s engineer report, shared with the commission prior to the meeting, warned that the tree could block the waterway in a severe storm and posed a risk to drainage; commissioners said the tree also sits largely on Lake Worth Drainage District property and that a 1994 encroachment/licensing agreement (with later amendments) contains indemnification language that could make Delray Beach liable for LWDD legal fees if the city contests removal.
What the commission decided: commissioners did not vote to litigate. Instead they directed staff to pursue a two‑track approach: (1) commission an independent arborist risk and anchoring assessment that city staff said could be completed rapidly and (2) prepare a draft motion and supporting materials asking LWDD to reconsider its removal decision and to request additional time. Staff said the arborist (Steven Davis) indicated he could produce a report within days and that the renovation program will plant roughly 845 new native trees as part of the golf course project.
City attorney advice and legal constraints: the city attorney warned the commission that the 1994 agreement and its indemnification provisions make a legal challenge difficult and that challenging long‑standing contract terms could expose taxpayers to substantial legal costs. Commissioners acknowledged the legal and factual hurdles — including LWDD property rights and an engineer’s report — but said newly discovered evidence (the arborist assessment) could justify a motion for reconsideration.
Time and next steps: staff said the city was operating on an abbreviated timeline (roughly 23 days remaining on LWDD’s clock at the time of the meeting) and that physical removal work could occur within 7–10 days if LWDD proceeded. The commission asked staff to deliver the arborist report to the city manager’s office, attach it to a draft motion for reconsideration, and return to the commission at its Feb. 24 meeting with recommendations. Staff also said it would simultaneously prepare logistics to remove the tree if LWDD enforces its order.
Public comment: speakers urged preservation. Jim Chard told commissioners he had consulted arborists who said “removing the tree causes more damage to the bank than leaving it there,” and Gail Clark urged considering a legacy‑tree designation. Staff and commissioners repeatedly cautioned that the city does not own most of the tree; several speakers noted roughly 90% of the tree’s footprint lies on LWDD property.
The commission did not take a formal vote on litigation or removal during the special meeting; instead it directed staff to pursue the rapid arborist assessment and the reconsideration motion and to return with the report and recommendations on Feb. 24.
