Atlantic Beach committee advances 'landmark oak' ordinance to commission amid debate over DBH and species scope

Chair Amy Palmer opened discussion on staff's proposed ordinance to create a "landmark oak" designation and discourage removal of large oaks. Amanda, the city staff liaison, said staff drafted a definition and "is recommending a 20 inches DBH" threshold as a starting point and expects to present ordinance language to the commission on June 22 for a first reading and discussion.

The proposal would discourage removal of designated trees, require applicants seeking removal to supply an arborist report, and allow the city to commission a third-party review; staff also recommended that applicants bear relocation costs if on-site relocation is feasible. Amanda told the committee the DBH number was left blank in the memo to allow flexibility but that staff's recommended threshold is 20 inches and that the change would be drafted as an update to Chapter 23.

Members voiced differing views on scope and effect. Anastasia Houston said the focus should be on preserving canopy as a whole, not only the "biggest" or "oldest" trees, arguing that protecting only the largest oaks could reduce biodiversity. Bruce Andrews and others noted the city already has mitigation requirements and that the landmark protections represent an additional layer intended to prevent loss of very large trees in sensitive locations.

Several members emphasized a two-phase strategy: adopt a narrower, faster-proceeding protection for large oaks to provide immediate safeguards, then return with a broader Chapter 23 revision to include maritime species or other criteria. Amanda and others cautioned that once a DBH is enshrined in the code it can be politically and administratively difficult to change, so the chosen threshold should be meaningful.

Committee members also discussed limits imposed by state law on arborist letters. Bruce and others asked whether the city can effectively challenge a certified private arborist's hazard letter. Amanda noted the state statute constrains the process and that the ordinance language around third-party reviews and challenges needs legal refinement before commission consideration. Members raised practical concerns about relocation requirements for large trees and noted relocation is often infeasible for very large specimens.

Public comment reinforced urgency. Dr. Nancy Stotts, who identified herself as a resident and a mayoral candidate, told the committee she and others are "seeing a lot of very bad things happening" to the city's canopy and urged stronger fines and deterrents for clear-cutting. She suggested the city offer an independent, highly trained arborist to examine disputed trees and said a moratorium on tree permits could be appropriate while the ordinance is finalized.

Staff noted that permits filed prior to a change in the law would generally be grandfathered, so pending permits (for example a 4th Street property discussed in the meeting) likely would not be affected by the new ordinance.

What's next: staff plans to finish the draft ordinance and the item is planned for first reading at the June 22 commission meeting; ESE members said they intend to attend and present their views. The committee also discussed preparing photos and recent permit data to illustrate canopy loss to commissioners.

Sources and attribution: quotes and claims are drawn from the committee's June 10 discussion and public comment (Amanda; Anastasia Houston; Bruce Andrews; Dr. Nancy Stotts).