Clay County split on request to remove 200‑year‑old live oak's specimen‑tree protection

A request to remove a specimen‑tree designation for an 83‑inch live oak at 2975 Rosecrans sparked hours of public comment and debate at the Clay County Board of County Commissioners meeting on March 24.

Beth, a planning staff member presenting the case, said a 2026 certified arborist report concluded that "significant soil grade modification within the root zone . . . represents a substantial physiological stressor expected to impair root function over time" and predicted "progressive decline . . . with mortality possible within an estimated 3 to 5 year period." Staff therefore recommended removal of the specimen designation so the property owner could build without returning to the BCC if future pruning or removal were needed.

Betsy Haslett, agent for the new owners, told the board the family did not buy the land to remove the tree and would prefer to preserve it if possible. "No one wanted to cut down the tree," Haslett said. She explained that the deed restriction the owners received at closing referenced trimming or removal contingent on an arborist report, but did not specify a 75‑foot protection zone; the owners only learned about the county's protection standard when a site plan was denied. Haslett said the owners could shift their house site to about 30–32 feet from the trunk, which she said would be acceptable and would allow building while trying to preserve the tree.

Neighbors and local volunteers urged the commissioners to keep the designation. James Christopher Gay, who lives across the street and led a preservation petition, said he provided photographs showing the tree "sits on the extreme right of the lot" and argued "the majority of the lot is clear and open to the river" and does not require removal of the tree. Gay called the specimen tree a community asset and asked the board to preserve the designation so future owners cannot remove it without returning to the board.

Multiple commissioners voiced the tension between property‑owner expectations and the county's conservation goals. One commissioner noted that the deed and related staff letter were part of the recorded documents received by buyers; another said the board had only designated this single specimen tree in Clay County and wrestled with whether a unique restriction imposed an undue burden on one owner. A number of commissioners pressed staff on whether the home could be moved closer to the previous building footprint (about 30 feet) and whether trimming would be allowed under arborist guidance.

After extended discussion, a commissioner moved to remove the specimen‑tree designation; a second motion followed. The motion failed on a split vote (motion did not carry), leaving the specimen‑tree designation in place. The board recorded the procedural outcome and returned to other agenda business.

What happens next: If the owners want to revise their site plan, staff said a revised site plan and additional arborist guidance could allow a building location that minimizes root‑zone impacts. If removal becomes necessary later for safety or decline, the owners must return to the board with another arborist evaluation and a formal request to remove the designation.

Stakeholders and official actions: The hearing included testimony from the property owner's agent (Betsy Haslett), the owners (Jim and Betty Bearden), neighbors and advocates (including James Christopher Gay and a representative of the Clay County Master Gardeners), and planning staff (Beth). Staff recorded that the specimen designation originally was requested by prior owners and recorded in the deed three years earlier.

The board did not approve removal of the designation; no trees were cut during the meeting, and the file remains subject to additional administrative review if the owners pursue a new site plan or future removal request.