Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables request to remove three historic trees at proposed wellness site
Summary
After a multi‑hour quasi‑judicial hearing, the commission voted unanimously to table a request to remove three historic trees at 190 S. Wild Orange Drive. Staff and the applicant agreed to return the item with the related PUD so engineers and planners can pursue parking and layout options to save more trees.
The New Smyrna Beach City Commission on Feb. 11 tabled a proposal to remove three historic trees on a 3.27‑acre parcel on State Road 44 that a local physician hopes to develop as a New Smyrna Wellness complex.
Staff said the application (HTR4‑24) sought removal of two live oaks and one American elm from a site with nine historic trees, but recommended approval only after finding the applicant had demonstrated limited feasible alternatives and proposing mitigation and conditions tying any removal to final PUD approval. Compliance coordinator Channing Maiolo told the commission staff’s report showed the project would preserve six historic trees and exceed tree‑preservation acreage minimums under the land development regulations.
Attorney Joey Posey, representing the owner, told the commission the site’s irregular shape, a 75‑foot frontage buffer and updated PUD overlay rules constrained building and parking placement. “We’re at the bare minimum,” he said of parking, adding the applicant was “happy to work with staff” to explore alternatives.
Independent arborist Ray Jarrett, who identified himself as a local consulting arborist, urged caution about attempts to isolate mature trees on commercial sites. “It is very hard to isolate a tree like that and impact all around it,” he said, warning that trees preserved in tight tree‑wells or after extensive root disturbance often decline years later.
Several neighbors urged the commission to consider design alternatives including moving the building entrance, reducing or resizing parking, or exploring stacked/second‑story building options. Resident Amber Dietz Cooper noted one of the trees held an active beehive and urged relocation rather than destruction.
Following extensive questioning about drive‑aisle geometry, parking minimums and stormwater mitigation, the applicant asked for time to reconcile site design and PUD requirements with preservation goals. The commission voted to table the tree‑removal application until planning can re‑present the matter coincident with the PUD review.
The applicant and staff said they will return with a revised plan and more engineering detail. The motion to table carried on a unanimous roll‑call vote.
