Neighbors press board to save century-old oaks; developer told to return with revised plan

About a dozen neighbors urged the St. Augustine Planning & Zoning Board to deny a developer’s request to remove two large live oak trees in Conservation Overlay Zone 3, saying contractors already damaged one of the trees and that the neighborhood depends on its tree canopy for storm protection and wildlife habitat.

Frederick DeBoyd, speaking for Atlantic Property (the project applicant), told the board the owner plans two single-family homes and that an arborist report concluded one tree could not be retained because the house footprints conflict with the tree locations. He said the applicant is following required procedures for significant-tree removals.

Residents gave detailed examples of what they described as unsafe work by the contractor: a large limb cut and placed onto a neighboring oak, a concrete truck driven over root zones, trenching next to sidewalks, and nighttime work done with little light. Ruby Raley, who said she followed the site work closely, described seeing a cement truck on soft ground near roots and called for stronger code enforcement. Another speaker said a beehive was dislodged and later burned, which she said illustrated the broader ecological impact of the clearing.

Multiple board members pressed staff and the applicant about alternatives. Board member Christina Tucker suggested the house footprint could be moved forward (reducing the front setback) to preserve the rear 48-inch oak, citing the board’s past willingness to reduce setbacks to save trees. Staff confirmed the parcel is subject to tree-credit accounting and that, if the rear oak is retained, the site would have sufficient credits to meet mitigation requirements.

Planning staff also flagged that one of the two trees appearing to be already removed would require the applicant to show appropriate mitigation and that tree-credits must be addressed during permitting. The board asked for an updated, dated arborist report that includes canopy dimensions and for the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing house placement moved forward if feasible.

The board voted to continue the item to the May 5 meeting so the applicant can deliver a site plan and an updated arborist report and so staff can confirm tree-credit mitigation and any necessary code-enforcement follow-up. In the meantime board members instructed the applicant not to perform further tree work until reviewed and directed by staff.

The continuance leaves the immediate outcome unresolved; neighbors said they will return with additional evidence and photos, and the board asked staff to ensure the public and applicant have clear documentation about the deadline and required filings.