Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer offered replanting plan after county says two live oaks were removed without authorization
Summary
At a January Alachua County code enforcement hearing, county staff said AMA Gainesville Investments removed two live oaks without authorization and sought mitigation equal to 216 cumulative inches of canopy or a $28,080 fee; the respondent proposed replanting smaller trees and the magistrate allowed time to negotiate a planting plan.
Special Magistrate Terry Zinn heard evidence on Case 25‑008922, in which county code officer Andrew Coniglio said inspectors found unauthorized removal of trees on parcel 07060‑100‑000 and recommended mitigation under Alachua County code. Coniglio told the hearing the county’s corrective action would require 216 cumulative inches of native canopy trees (the doubled penalty for unauthorized removal), or a fee‑in‑lieu of $28,080, and warned of a $100 daily fine for failure to meet a compliance deadline; the county reported $140 in costs to bring the matter to hearing.
The property representative, who identified himself as Alex Scoval, said the two removed trees were live oaks in a common area and that the trees appeared diseased or hollow. Scoval displayed photographs and an email from a neighbor documenting a prior large tree fall and argued the removals were safety‑driven. He proposed planting five two‑inch‑caliper live oaks in the common area, spaced to allow healthy canopy growth, and said he would accept county checks on survival and replacement if plantings failed.
Coniglio said his last inspection was Aug. 21, 2025, and that the county’s mitigation calculation doubled the mitigation inches because the removals were unauthorized; he also confirmed the county could accept a fee in lieu or a combination of plantings and payment. Magistrate Zinn told the respondent the county’s offer to accept planting in lieu of immediate fine already existed and said he would give the parties additional time to work out a planting plan that met the criteria and the respondent’s desire to preserve usable common‑area landscaping.
No final sanction was announced in the hearing; the magistrate indicated he would issue a written decision later and that the respondent would be notified by mail. The county’s recommended remediation, fee amounts, and the proposed daily fine were entered into the record.
