St. Augustine commission denies requested lien reduction for Pelican Reef lot after disputed tree removals

The commission voted to refuse a staff‑recommended reduction of a code‑enforcement lien tied to unpermitted tree removal on a Pelican Reef property, sustaining the city’s stronger monetary penalty.

What the commission decided: Commissioners voted to deny the property owner’s request to reduce a $24,500 lien tied to removal of 15 southern red cedar trees and two oak trees without a permit. The motion to deny the lien reduction passed by roll call (three in favor of denial, two opposed). The special magistrate had previously recommended a reduced lien of $4,500 paired with replanting or mitigation conditions; opponents of the reduction called the lower amount precedent‑setting and insufficient.

Public comment and arguments: Local resident BJ Kaledi urged the commission to hold the property owner fully accountable, calling a $24,500 fine “not that much” given the scale of the removals and describing a pattern of similar clearings in the neighborhood. The property owner’s attorney, James Whitehouse, said staff and the special magistrate had reviewed the facts and recommended parity with the adjacent lot’s penalty; he asked the commission to allow the magistrate’s order to be implemented and the lien reduced so court‑ordered remediation could proceed.

Clarifying details: As noted in staff materials, the special magistrate’s original fines were calculated as $1,500 per cedar removed and $1,000 per oak removed, producing the $24,500 total. The magistrate’s subsequent recommendation—used as the basis for the lien‑reduction request—would require the property owner to replace or replant 30 cedar trees and two oaks (maintaining at least 10 cedars on site). Any trees the owner cannot fit on the lot must be paid into the city’s tree mitigation fund at $325 per tree.

Commissioner statements: Commissioners split on whether to accept the magistrate’s reduction request. Supporters of denial said the higher fine better reflects the environmental and neighborhood harm and that reducing fines now would weaken future enforcement. Commissioners who supported the magistrate’s outcome cited procedural consistency and noted staff had recommended the reduced lien to match a neighboring property’s resolution.

Next steps: The commission’s denial leaves the original lien in place; staff affirmed that property‑level remedies (replanting or payment into the mitigation fund) remain part of the compliance path. The city will continue code enforcement oversight until the ordered replanting or mitigation payments are completed.