Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees Grand Tree Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tampa ARC continues decision on grand‑tree removal at 407 East Adalee to June 1
Summary
The Architectural Review Commission continued a request to remove a 43‑inch live oak at 407 E. Adalee so the applicant can provide a Level‑3 tree risk assessment and additional design alternatives; the continuance was approved unanimously for the June 1 meeting.
Chair Ted Kempton opened the public hearing on ARC 26‑0000171 for 407 East Adalee and heard the applicant, Kevin Robles, propose a variance to remove a grand live oak to permit construction of a new single‑family house and an accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant said two alternative site plans were provided but argued the tree’s location and prior root‑zone disturbance impose a unique hardship for reasonable development. Kevin Robles said two arborist reports were submitted, including a certified risk assessment that recommends removal because of root‑zone disturbance and trunk and root collar damage. “Removal should be considered,” Robles said, summarizing the risk assessment he provided to the board.
Mary Bryson of Natural Resources told the commission the tree is a 43‑inch live oak with a 50–55 ft canopy and a department condition rating of B‑7. Bryson told the panel that staff had previously denied a removal permit when a structure remained on site, that demolition and earlier site disturbance contributed to root damage, and that mitigation for removal would be planting two 2.5‑inch replacement trees. She also outlined alternatives staff favors — moving the proposed structure forward up to five feet, using alternative foundations (piers, helical piles) and air‑spading the root collar during construction — and said the tree could likely be accommodated if the applicant reasonably reconfigured the design and used alternative construction methods.
Commissioners pressed the applicant about whether he had explored reshaping or redesigning the house to save the tree. Commissioner John Prokop and others questioned the applicant’s reliance on a single house plan that is repeatedly moved around the lot rather than developing an alternate plan that would avoid the protected radius. The applicant responded that, given lot geometry and code limits on setbacks, he could not produce a reasonably sized house plan that met the owner’s parking needs without approaching the tree.
After extended questioning and cross‑examination of the arborist reports, the applicant asked for a continuance to obtain a Level‑3 tree risk assessment and to prepare additional design alternatives. Staff identified June 1 as the earliest feasible date to return to the ARC. Commissioner John Prokop moved to continue ARC 26‑0000171 to the June 1 public hearing at 5:30 p.m.; Commissioner Carole Post seconded. The commission voted to continue the matter unanimously. Natural Resources was asked to attend the continued hearing with any additional materials.
The continuation formally pauses any decision on the variance request. The case will return to the Architectural Review Commission’s public agenda on June 1 for further testimony, the new risk assessment, and any revised site or building plans.
Next steps: the applicant will provide a Level‑3 tree risk assessment and any alternate house plans; staff and Natural Resources will review and the commission will reconsider the variance on June 1.
