Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Trees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board clarifies tree‑removal fines and appeals, adopting per‑tree fines and minimums for nonresidential zones

Fernandina Beach Planning Advisory Board · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff proposed and the board approved an amendment to the land‑development code clarifying calculation of fines for unauthorized tree removal. The change directs fines to be calculated per tree by size (DBH) and preserves a minimum fine for nonresidential development, with appeals to the special magistrate.

Fernandina Beach’s Planning Advisory Board on Dec. 10 approved a text amendment clarifying how fines are calculated for unauthorized tree removal and where appeals must be filed.

Staff explained the amendment responds to inconsistent enforcement and ambiguity about which tree is considered the 'first' when multiple trees are removed. The proposed approach calculates the fine for each unauthorized tree according to its diameter category (DBH), with a $1,000 minimum for small residential tree removals and higher amounts (for example, $5,000 and larger) for large‑DBH or nonresidential cases. The amendment also clarifies that appeals of such fines are to the city’s special magistrate.

Board members and legal counsel discussed whether fines should be assessed per tree DBH rather than by sequence; staff and counsel confirmed the proposal aims to make penalties predictable and to deter the removal of large trees. Margaret Kirkland (Conserv Nassau) urged differential rates for multifamily and nonresidential projects because of impervious‑surface and stormwater concerns.

A motion to adopt the clarification (PAB 2025‑20) passed on a voice vote. Staff said the change is intended to remove ambiguity that led to inconsistent magistrate rulings and to create a clearer enforcement standard.