Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board fines homeowner $1,000 and orders canopy tree after unlawful live‑oak removal
Summary
The Municipal Code Enforcement Board found a homeowner had unlawfully removed a protected live oak and imposed a $1,000 fine per violation and required planting a canopy‑type replacement within 30 days, citing the tree‑fine matrix and the tree’s status as required canopy for the development.
The City of Temple Terrace Municipal Code Enforcement Board on May 13 found the owner of 7539 Terrace River Drive in violation of tree‑protection provisions after removing a protected live oak and imposed a $1,000 fine with an order to plant a canopy‑type replacement within 30 days.
City arborist Joe Ferris told the board the removed tree was a protected live oak that had been required as part of the original development and that the arborist’s review did not support the owner’s stated reasons for removal. “Those justifications were not enough for removal of a healthy live oak,” Ferris said in explaining his recommendation to the board.
The respondent, Atasara HaMote, described ongoing property issues, including irrigation line problems, repeated sod replacement costs and branch concerns near the house. “I had to completely replace [irrigation], that was about $1,500. I had to get new sod … I had to pay $400 or $500 for trimming,” HaMote said, and told the board she was amenable to planting a new tree in the backyard.
Board members referenced the published tree‑fine matrix in deliberations and debated fines that ranged from a modest penalty up to matrix levels tied to tree size. After discussion the board adopted a motion finding the violation irreparable and imposed a $1,000 fine per violation and required a canopy‑type tree be planted on the property within 30 days. One board member noted the matrix range and emphasized replanting and restoration requirements.
The board recorded that replanting must conform to the city’s acceptable tree list and that the arborist would advise on species and location. The ruling noted the city may escalate penalties for future or repeat removals and stressed that property owners should consult the arborist and permitting process before removing protected trees.
The respondent was given the planting requirement and financial penalty; the board indicated the motion and its enforcement will be entered in the case record. The board also reminded property owners that certain removal justifications (disease, dead or dying trees with arborist corroboration) can be considered, but unilateral removal of protected canopy trees without prior approval is prohibited under the city code.
