Marion County hears first public hearing on land‑development rewrite focused on tree protections, buffers and open space

Marion County staff brought the first of two public hearings on broad Land Development Code amendments that would change how the county protects trees, defines open space, and requires landscaping and buffers. The board scheduled a second hearing for April 22 at 9 a.m. and asked staff to return with cleaned copies, visual mockups and specific cost and continuity analyses for items that drew concern.

The most consequential changes presented would: raise the minimum regulated‑tree size from 10 inches to 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH); define specimen trees (for example, live oak at 36 inches DBH, southern magnolia at 24 inches DBH, longleaf pine at 18 inches DBH); adopt a tiered replacement schedule (20–29" at 75% of inches removed; 30–35" at 100%; specimen trees replaced at 200%); add stronger barricade and inspection language including a proposed 10‑day advance notice before pre‑clearing; and create enforcement mechanisms that can include fines assessed by the inches of removed trunk and injunctive relief.

"This code does not prohibit tree removal. It just requires justification," said Jim Coolard, the county’s parks and recreation director and landscape architect, summarizing staff intent to protect long‑term canopy while allowing development to proceed with clearer standards. Coolard said staff proposes assessing fines by measuring removed inches and applying an annually established mitigation rate; staff cited an example mitigation rate of roughly $3.52–$3.57 per inch and described a 100‑inches‑per‑acre example that would amount to roughly $35,000 per acre at that rate.

Staff also described a process change meant to discourage 'clear‑and‑wait' tactics for land bought for near‑term development: a two‑year waiting period tied to certain land‑use transitions, with an alternative 'clawback' or rebuttable presumption option that could extend enforcement reach up to five years if evidence suggests land was purchased for development and then cleared.

LDRC chair David Tillman and commission members pressed staff on thresholds and incentives. Tillman said some committee members wanted higher specimen thresholds for certain species and sought better 'carrot' incentives for retaining canopy that match the severity of replacement penalties. "If we want people to save trees, the credits need to be meaningful," Tillman said.

Commissioners and staff debated aesthetic and safety tradeoffs in the buffer rules. Staff proposed allowing a 6‑ft opaque fence in lieu of a vegetative buffer in limited situations but excluding such fences along the public right of way. Several commissioners asked staff to return with 100‑ and 200‑foot visual mockups—elevations and cross sections—so the board and the public can see how different buffer options (wider natural buffers, engineered walls, or fences) will look along four‑lane corridors and residential backlots.

UF/IFAS technical input provided planting guidance: an IFAS representative advised diversity limits (roughly a 25% limit on any single species in large planting palettes) and recommended minimum setbacks (for example, avoid planting certain large shade trees within 15 ft of home foundations). Maxine, the IFAS speaker, told the board that diversity reduces risk from pests and disease and improves long‑term canopy resilience.

Staff proposed modest edits to open‑space rules to encourage habitat connectivity and clarified that limited parking associated with larger amenity parks may count toward improved‑open‑space acreage (staff proposed a 10% cap on parking counted as improved open space). Stormwater and emergency‑management staff cautioned that changing natural open‑space definitions could affect the county’s CRS (Community Rating System) flood‑insurance credits and recommended caution before altering language tied to FEMA/community rating benefits.

Public commenters urged more analysis and clearer, simpler metrics. Developer and resident Todd Rudyani asked for a clear business‑impact evaluation and sample elevations showing what buffer classifications will look like in 10–25 years. Resident Harvey Vanden warned that penalties that are too severe will encourage property owners to clear early and wait rather than seek compliance, and he urged staff to ensure the code rewards preservation as well as punishes removal.

The board directed staff to return with: clean single‑column code drafts; visual mockups showing buffer and planting options at scale; cost and example math demonstrating the financial impact of replacement ratios and fines for typical parcel scenarios; and clarifications on how parking, improved open space, and stormwater features will be treated in credits. The board will take up uncontested items on April 22 and set continuances for sections needing further study.

The first hearing did not produce final votes on the substantive policy changes. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized a desire to preserve Marion County’s landscape character while making the rules practical and enforceable.

What happens next: staff will provide the requested visuals and financial examples, refine language on 10‑day notices, barricade standards, and any clawback language, and return April 22 for the second public hearing and possible adoption of items the board has cleared.

Sources: public hearing transcript and presentations to the Marion County Board of County Commissioners.