Atlantic Beach committee asks staff to explore stronger front-yard tree-planting requirements

The Environmental Stewardship Committee unanimously asked city staff on April 8 to explore changing the city’s tree code to require more intensive front-yard tree planting, basing any new requirement on linear street frontage rather than the existing square-foot lot area calculation.

The request, made after substantial discussion and an initial motion from Bruce Andrews, was read into the record by Committee member Sarah Boren as a staff-directed assignment: "we want staff to explore more intense front yard tree planting based on linear footage versus square foot lot, and to come back to ESE with ideas," she said. The committee seconded the proposal and approved it by voice vote.

Why it matters: Committee members said the present rules allow wide or corner lots to meet minimum requirements with too few street trees, producing stretches of streets with large homes and little canopy. The change would be intended to produce a more consistent street-edge tree canopy and address modern redevelopment patterns that leave little tree shade at the public right-of-way.

Discussion and amendments: The committee debated implementation challenges, including how code enforcement treats existing (grandfathered) properties and how the tree code overlaps with the city’s land development code for new construction. Several members cautioned against forcing trees into unsafe or impractical locations; Bruce Andrews, who proposed the original motion directing staff to evaluate linear frontage metrics, said the intent was strategic: ‘‘There’s too much house and too little tree,’’ he said, urging a concept-level approach that staff could refine.

Next steps: Staff were asked to analyze the legal and technical implications of a linear-footage approach, identify exceptions (for site constraints or safety), and return options and draft language to the committee for consideration. The committee did not adopt specific ordinance text at the meeting; it instructed staff to prepare proposals and impact analysis.

Context: The motion follows months of committee discussion about idle motions, a backlog of tree-related recommendations awaiting commission action and concerns that the city’s current planting requirements do not produce the canopy the community expects. Committee members emphasized they were asking staff to develop feasible options, not immediately imposing new requirements.

The committee adjourned after approving the staff study request; staff indicated they would return with findings and possible ordinance language at a future meeting.