Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscaping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates wide-ranging Article 5 changes: trees, appendix list, e‑bikes and seawall language
Summary
Staff presented continued revisions to Article 5 to set tree planting minimums for single‑family lots, require 12‑foot minimum trees and a 40% Appendix B composition, allow motorized vehicles for ADA beach access while leaving enforcement and signage to council discretion, and add seawall maintenance and dredging guidance; members raised enforceability and species‑availability concerns.
Planning staff returned with a multi‑section update to Article 5, the development code chapter that covers landscaping, environmentally sensitive lands, beaches and related regulations.
Laura, a planning staff member, walked the board through changes intended to treat single‑family lot development differently from commercial development: single‑family lots would be required to plant one tree for every 40 feet of property line with each tree at least 12 feet tall at installation, while commercial projects would remain subject to the fuller landscaping standards. "Starting with that ... single family lot development shall be required to plant 1 tree for 40 millimeter feet" Laura explained (transcript language edited for clarity). Staff also proposed that at least 40% of planted trees come from a list in Appendix B and discussed whether the appendix should show a broad list (43 species in the packet) or a shorter, nursery‑practical list (about 22 species) identified by a local native nursery.
Board members pressed on enforceability. One member asked who would determine whether a tree is "maintained in good health;" staff and members said code enforcement would pursue selective cases and that fines are codified elsewhere. A member said, "I don't think anybody's gonna go around town and measure whether or not a tree is healthy, but it could be an issue where one property owner either removes or lets all of their trees die," and staff replied that the ordinance language provides the basis for action in those cases.
The board also reviewed language allowing certain motorized personal vehicles on the beach for ADA accessibility. Laura said the draft allows motorized personal vehicles for ADA access and noted the council could authorize or restrict vehicles by resolution. Some board members expressed safety concerns about higher‑powered e‑bikes: "They can go pretty fast... You've got children playing down there on that hard sand," one member said. Others argued that assisted bikes are valuable to older residents and visitors. The board discussed leaving a flexible council authorization rather than enumerating devices in the code.
Separately, the draft inserts seawall maintenance language requiring property owners to manage seawalls so they do not degrade shoreline stability, and trims local mitigation language for coastal mitigation banks, noting that the state typically handles compensatory mitigation. The staff recommended deleting or modifying FDEP‑specific language and aligning thresholds (for example, a permit threshold tied to 4‑foot vs. 5‑foot widths) to remain consistent with state rules.
Board members asked staff to: (1) consider marking the Appendix B list to show commonly available species or include a starred subset, (2) clarify cross‑references so single‑family exceptions explicitly call back to the correct sections, and (3) return with adjusted language on the timber/ADA width and other numbering inconsistencies. Staff said they would make those adjustments and bring a revised draft back to the board.
Next steps: staff will revise Article 5 per the board’s direction and return with updated language and corrected page/section numbering.
