Marion County approves updated definitions, punts detailed tree-protection debate to May 18 hearing

The Marion County Board of County Commissioners on April 10 approved updated code definitions and moved several contested items on the county’s draft Land Development Code to a follow-up public hearing on May 18.

The board voted unanimously to adopt changes to the definitions section after staff added language that permits a certified arborist or a licensed landscape architect to designate critical root zones and tree protection zones — a concession intended to streamline reviews of large trees on development sites. Chairman Zalick called the vote after staff and developers reached agreement on how to reference a separate, maintainable shade-tree list that will be located in the landscape section and maintained by county staff.

Why it matters: The definitions decide procedural authority and which trees qualify for extra protections or mitigation credit under the new code. Commissioners framed the changes as a procedural fix that still allows the county landscape architect and staff to review and, if necessary, question arborist designations.

The hearing included two other agenda actions that passed unanimously: amendments permitting accessory aircraft hangars on agricultural properties and on residential properties with legal access to private airports, both limited to a 40-foot maximum height. Those votes were routine, with no public opposition.

The meeting’s central and most contentious discussion concerned tree protection: staff said the proposed code raises the diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) threshold for regulated trees from 10 to 20 inches and creates a separate category of specimen trees (proposed at 36 inches DBH for live oaks) with stronger replacement and preservation requirements. County landscape architect Jim Coolard argued for the 36-inch specimen threshold as the state-standard practice for live oaks. “I would highly suggest that we stick at 36 inches DBH,” Coolard said during the presentation.

Several developers and consultants pushed back. David Tillman of Tillman Associates urged a higher specimen threshold, calling a “36 inch oak tree… not that special” and warning that treating all 36-inch trees as specimens would create excessive redesign and uncertainty for projects that currently manage common 36-inch trees through standard mitigation. Consultant Matt Fabian asked the board to adopt a clear dispute-resolution path if an applicant’s arborist and county staff disagree, suggesting a vetted third-party review such as UF/IFAS when necessary.

Staff also demonstrated how the new shade-tree credits and replacement math would work on a real site (a Tractor Supply example). The spreadsheet showed preservation credits that can substantially reduce the number of required replacement trees when larger trees are retained — a point developers said could both incentivize preservation and complicate replacement math.

Next steps: the board instructed staff to return with a formal shade-tree list, clarified language about hand-digging or limited excavation under arborist supervision for root-zone work, and to refine enforcement language (including remediation timelines and fine computation tied to the county’s tree mitigation rates). Commissioners continued the remaining, complex sections (tree protection/preservation and buffers) until the May 18 hearing to give staff time to incorporate examples and clearer remediation/appeals language.

The chair closed the session by scheduling the follow-up hearing; commissioners said they want clearer cost examples and objective tables so the community and applicants can see how the changes will affect specific projects.