Environmental Stewardship Committee recommends landmark protection for maritime trees 20 inches DBH and asks commission for review

The Atlantic Beach Environmental Stewardship Committee voted May 13 to ask the City Commission to adopt short-term protections for large canopy trees, recommending that maritime trees 20 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater be designated as protected landmark trees unless dead or an immediate hazard.

The motion, moved by Todd Meyer and seconded by Bruce Andrews, calls for a required proof-of-infeasibility to remove a protected tree that would include an alternative building-design statement from an architect or design engineer, a health-and-risk review from a qualified certified arborist and a minimum 30-day period for review; if no alternatives can be found, the case would be presented to the City Commission for final approval. "If no alternatives can be found, present the case to commission," Meyer read when proposing the language.

Why it matters: Committee members and staff said the May 2 town hall showed clear public support for near-term protections for larger trees while a broader overhaul of Chapter 23 (the city’s tree code) is developed. Peyton Jamieson, city staff, told the committee that staff is preparing a draft ordinance with short-term protections and expects to put materials before the commission soon: "We're actually trying to, due to that town hall, we're working on...short term protection now and then, obviously, longer term protection with Chapter 23 updates," Jamieson said.

Debate and compromises: Members debated the right standard for demonstrating infeasibility. Several expressed concern that relying solely on an arborist letter could be gamed by applicants; others said an architect or engineer should document why the site cannot be redesigned to retain a tree. "I don't think an arborist is the one...who certifies the health of the tree, not you know, and design," one member said during the discussion. The committee agreed its recommendation should require multiple forms of evidence and a designated decision path rather than leaving the determination purely to staff.

Scope and species: The motion explicitly targets maritime/native canopy species and a 20-inch DBH threshold was proposed in committee discussion as a starting point; staff told members that internal conversations also referenced 20 inches for live oaks as a meaningful benchmark. Members noted options to broaden the list of species later and urged preserving biodiversity rather than focusing solely on live oaks.

Process and next steps: The committee approved the recommendation by voice vote and will forward its motion and supporting language to staff for transmittal to the City Commission. Staff and committee members noted an internal deadline for comments to the commission packet in late May and early June; the committee emphasized that the short-term protection is intended as a first phase while staff continues work on a more comprehensive Chapter 23 update.

What the motion does not settle: The committee’s recommendation requests—but does not itself change—city code. The vote was a committee recommendation to be considered by the City Commission; the transcript records a voice vote but does not contain a precise roll-call tally. The committee also discussed but did not adopt additional measures (for example, whether mitigation rates should be doubled in every circumstance), leaving those details to staff and the commission’s draft ordinance.

Members’ closing notes and implementation: Staff said it will include the committee’s recommendations in the materials it sends to the city manager and commission. The committee also asked staff to consider practical transparency measures, such as posting arborist letters or permit filings online to allow timely review, which members proposed discussing further at a future meeting.