Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Magistrate gives 30 days to seek variance after unpermitted tree removal at 1890 Live Oak Lane

City of Atlantic Beach Code Enforcement Hearing · November 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A magistrate ordered the property owners at 1890 Live Oak Lane to file an application with the Community Development Board within 30 days to suspend a large double-mitigation penalty stemming from an unpermitted tree removal; the fine is suspended only if an application is filed.

Magistrate Suzanne Green ordered property owners at 1890 Live Oak Lane to apply for a variance with the Community Development Board within 30 days or face enforcement of an earlier mitigation order related to an unpermitted tree removal.

Angela Irizarry, public works inspector for the City of Atlantic Beach, told the hearing the case had two violations recorded in July: an unpermitted tree removal and an unpermitted shed. The shed has been removed, Irizarry said, but the tree removal remained unresolved and the Environmental Stewardship Committee’s TREE subcommittee upheld staff’s interpretation of the code and denied the owners’ appeal.

Irizarry described the city’s mitigation calculation: "Because of that double mitigation, they owe a 150 inches which at a $150 an inch is $22,500," she said. The magistrate noted that an application or appeal to the Community Development Board would typically take weeks to schedule but would serve to suspend assessment of the mitigation while the appeal or variance is pending.

Rob Covington, one of the respondents, said the TREE subcommittee had agreed the tree was diseased and "recommended get rid of any monetary fines," and that the subcommittee had accepted the respondents’ arborist report. The magistrate acknowledged that the tree board’s views were relevant but said her authority is constrained by code and earlier orders; she set a 30-day deadline for the owners to file an application and said the prior mitigation order would remain suspended only if an application was submitted within that timeframe.

The magistrate said the written order will reflect the suspension contingent on filing and advised the respondents to copy code staff when they file so the city can note receipt of the application. If no application is filed within 30 days, the previously ordered mitigation—now reflected in the record—will be enforced.