Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special Magistrate delays ruling in dispute over diseased oak tree between adjacent East Strong Street properties
Summary
Special Magistrate John Traywick withheld a ruling in companion code-enforcement cases over a diseased oak tree that straddles 3104 and 3106 East Strong Street, asking the parties to submit a current survey and the specific Florida statute cited before he issues a decision. A city arborist recommended removal.
Special Magistrate John Traywick on April 21 withheld a ruling in companion code-enforcement cases over a diseased oak tree that crosses the property line between 3104 and 3106 East Strong Street in Pensacola.
Code Enforcement Officer Jason Hendricks told the hearing the city received a citizen complaint on Aug. 14, 2025, and followed up with mailed notices, postings and inspections. Hendricks presented photos, two tree-removal estimates and a city arborist assessment dated April 15 by Richard Franklin that recommended removal. "Removal of the tree is recommended," Hendricks said, and asked the magistrate to find 3104 East Strong Street in violation if corrective action was not completed by May 4 and to begin a $25-per-day fine on May 5, 2026.
Karen T. Davis, identified at the hearing as the trustee associated with 3104 East Strong, told the magistrate she "had done everything I was supposed to do," and said her only delay was not having heard back from the neighboring property owner. John Olson, the owner of 3106 East Strong, presented documentation he said supports his contention that the majority of the trunk lies on the adjacent property and referred to Florida statutory guidance. Olson said he obtained an estimate from Treefrog (about $4,000) and had attempted to communicate with the city and his neighbor; he told the magistrate he would submit a current survey and other documentation to Officer Hendricks and the city.
Traywick said he needed to review the survey and the specific statutory citation Olson invoked before deciding who is responsible for removal costs. "I'm not going to rule on it until I have a chance to look at that material," the magistrate said, and he directed the parties to provide the documents quickly so he could issue a ruling soon after review. The magistrate postponed ruling on both companion cases pending receipt of the survey and the legal citation.
The magistrate's action leaves the cases unresolved for now; if the parties do not resolve the matter or if the required corrective actions are not completed, Hendricks asked that the magistrate impose fines beginning May 5, 2026. The magistrate said he would enter his ruling soon after he receives and reviews the materials submitted by the parties.
