CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting May 12, 2015

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA The Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board met in formal session at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday,, in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by William Rosenthal, Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL William Rosenthal, Chairman Judi Schuyler, Vice Chair Andrew Morgan Chad Smith CeCe Reigle Martha Mickler Clyde Taylor - Absent Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney Wil Franke, Building & Code Enforcement Manager Noel Mahr, Code Enforcement Inspector Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording The City staff was sworn in. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 14, 2015) structure, but that she had no vested interest. 4. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL Mr. Morgan moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosenthal and approved by 3. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Item 4 (a) Carl A. Anderson 29 Nelmar Avenue Removal of a 26 Live Oak tree and a 19 Cedar tree. City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Mahr reported the following: Ms. Reigle disclosed that she had walked the property at 64 St. Francis Street and had spoken with Mrs. McCall and John Valdes regarding the The applicant was requesting to remove a 26 Live Oak tree that was in hazardous condition with a 12 degree lean over the house and large decay at the base of

2 the tree, also to remove a 19 Cedar tree that was in poor condition with heavy decay in the truck and a split on the base of the tree. City Staff had received an arborist report from Eddie Conlon recommending removal. Applicant was aware that replacement would be required. Carl and Betty Anderson, 29 Nelmar Avenue, were present and testified to the following: They had hired an arborist and had received a report recommending the removal of the trees. Mrs. Anderson explained that when they had purchased the home, they did so because they loved the Oak trees and unfortunately the trees had now become a problem. She expressed interest in having the trees removed soon and was agreeable to the replanting of the replacement trees. Public hearing was opened, however there was no comment, so public hearing was closed. Mr. Rosenthal moved to approve the removal of one Cedar tree and one Laurel Oak tree with the required replacements. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and was approved by 2 Item 4 (b) Ali Burchfield 29 Rohde Avenue Removal of a 40 Laurel Oak tree and a 28 Live Oak tree. City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Mahr reported the following: The applicant was requesting to remove a conjoined 40 Laurel Oak tree, which had serious hollows and canker sores with decay at the base of the tree, also the removal of a 28 Live Oak tree, which had a severe lean to the east of the property along with root damage. An arborist recommended removal of both trees, and that report was attached. Mr. Mahr further reported that this tree had been looked at several times, but the owner had not previously wanted to remove the tree. However, the applicant was now seeking removal due to the fact of the Laurel Oak being seriously diseased, compounded with the fact that it was conjoined at the base with the Live Oak tree. Mr. Rosenthal made inquiry of Staff as to the number of applications that come into the building department with an arborist report in hand. Mr. Mahr responded that Code Enforcement recommended an arborist report when appealing.

3 Mr. Morgan questioned, that from looking at the photos of the fence, what the implication would be of part of the tree being on the property line. Mr. Mahr replied that it was unclear to him as there had not been a property survey to his knowledge and he also commented that the tree was approximately 70 years old. Ms. May stated that there would have to be a live dispute as to the ownership of the tree. She explained that the applicant was presenting ownership, but if a dispute came into play where someone stated that the tree was on their property, then we would have to get into a property survey. If the tree were a 90/10 split on the property, and the neighbors wanted to go to court, then they could do that. Ali Burchfield, 29 Rohde Avenue, was present and testified to the following: That from a distance the tree appeared healthy with green foliage, however you can stick a butter knife into the trunk. She lastly reported that the tree was not threatening her home, but was threatening the neighbor s fence, neighbors home, and the power lines. Mr. Rosenthal asked the applicant whom the neighbor was. Ms. Burchfield replied that Judy Blaylok was her neighbor. Ms. Reigle inquired of the applicant whether she had written consent from Judy Blaylok, and if a survey had been done at the time she purchased the property, and if so, did that survey show the trees. Ms. Burchfield replied that she was certain that a small portion, where the tree roots spread out and have pushed her fence over, would be crowding onto the neighboring property. She stated that there was no dispute between herself and her neighbor. That in 2011 she had received recommendation of removal from an arborist, however, she elected not to remove the tree at that time. That she had a guest at her home point out a large crease in the trunk of the tree. She stated that Mr. Mahr had reported to her that she could get approval for removal of the larger tree because it had exceeded its life span. 3 Public hearing was opened. Diane Jacoby, 23 Rohde Avenue, commented on the following: The trees that were in question had given the canopy to western exposure for many years. She explained that it was her understanding that a Live Oak tree could have a 600 year life span; 200 years growing to a mature tree, 200 years as a mature tree, and 200 years as a dying tree. With that she was

4 unsure of when one could call a tree dying and causing damage. She asked the Board to consider denying the removal of the trees as they give to the canopy. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Morgan commented to staff that he had looked at the City Code, and he questioned could a tree be too large that it would not require coming before the Board. Mr. Mahr responded that City Code states that a tree required Board approval, however anything over 36 could be approved at staff level so long as it were determined to be a hazardous tree and/or with an arborist report declaring such. He further commented that this tree would have been approved at Staff level, but because it was conjoined with the Live Oak and because he was uncertain if one tree could be removed without the other, and because of the condition of the severe lean, he elected to bring this case to the Board. Mr. Morgan expressed his concern over the tree not solely being on the applicant s property as he had been involved in lawsuits such as this. Mr. Franke suggested that the Board could elect to continue this case to the June meeting to allow Ms. Burchfield time to present written permission from neighbor, or the Board could elect to approve with the condition that the applicant provide a letter of permission from neighbor to staff prior to removal of tree. Mrs. Mickler commented that while she sympathized, she preferred to continue the case to allow Ms. Burchfield time to receive written permission from the neighbor. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to see the Live Oak remain. The Board discussed the options for removal/partial removal. Ms. Burchfield, stated that she would be agreeable with the removal of one tree. Mr. Rosenthal asked council what liability the City would have with removal of one tree when the arborist report declared it a danger. Ms. May stated that she did not see liability. Mr. Franke asked Ms. Burchfield if both trees were possibly encroaching. Ms. Burchfield replied that at the very bottom most likely. She stated that she would have no problem obtaining a letter of permission from her neighbor and pleaded with the Board to allow her to remove the tree before the hurricane season as she had already prolonged the removal too long. Mr. Franke suggested that the Board could approve with condition that staff would obtain letter of permission from neighbor prior to removal. Mrs. Schuyler commented that as much as she hated to see trees removed, she 4

5 was concerned that the second tree would fall, as the Arborist report stated the tree could fall. Mr. Rosenthal commented that in the event the Board approved the removal of one tree, would it be possible at a later date for Staff to revisit the tree to determine the status of the second trees health. Mr. Mahr responded that would take time and recommended that if Ms. Burchfield wanted to have the one tree cut and then have an arborist revisit the tree and give a report that could be done. Mr. Morgan asked Ms. May about the arborist s second report there. He commented that there was a reinspection date of April 17, 2015, was there a concern of liability. Ms. May responded that with the disclaimer that would not put the City on notice because it was still equivocal with the disclaimer. She further explained that yes the arborist inspected in 2011 and re-inspected on April 17, 2015 in which the report remained the same, and added that in the disclaimer it was stated that they could not detect every condition. Ms. May commented that It was at this Board s discretion to decide if there was a great chance that this other tree would not survive, that is the Boards decision. Mr. Smith stated that in the arborist disclaimer, she did not want to take responsibility for the tree. And he questioned why this Board would take responsibility with a tree being a living organism. Mr. Morgan moved to approve the removal of one 40 Laurel Oak tree pending presentation of authorization from the neighbor subsequent to this days meeting, but prior to removal of tree, with replacement and/or payment to the tree mitigation fund. Mr. Rosenthal seconded the motion and was approved by the following voice vote: Ayes: Morgan, Rosenthal, Mickler, Schuyler, Smith. Nays: Reigle. Item 4 (c) Michael Mainville 14 Baru Road Removal of a Oak tree City Code, Chapter 25, Section Mr. Boles reported the following: The applicant was seeking permission to remove a 20 Oak tree which was sitting on a mound of dirt. An Arborist report was submitted with the statement that a mallet report on the tree was up to 7 feet which proved the tree to be hollow. He further reported that the second tree shown in the photos was pending permit application 5

6 from the neighbor for removal as the tree had encroached onto the neighbor s property and the cutting of that tree from the fence line up would deaden the tree making the applicant liable, so that tree was not in question with this application. The applicant was present. Michael Mainville, 14 Baru Road, was present and testified to the following; Mr. Lippi had performed a probing test that revealed the condition of the root system to have significant damage. Should the tree fall, it would create substantial damage to the garage of the home. He was agreeable with the replacement should the Board grant the removal. Public hearing was opened, however there was no comment, so public hearing was closed. Mr. Rosenthal moved to approve the removal of one Oak tree with the replacement requirement of two shade trees. Ms. Reigle seconded the motion and was approved by 5. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES 6 Item 5 (a) Carlton McCall 64 St. Francis Street Unsafe Structure/Building Abatement City Code, Chapter 8, Section Mr. Franke reported the following: He updated the Board with the status of the case giving a progress report that the deadline date would be May 23, That Mrs. McCall had come into the Building Department and provided information where she had employed a contractor and permits had been issued. Staff was awaiting request for final inspections. Item 5 (b) Patricia Barthel 26 Toques Place Installed concrete pavers and vinyl fencing without permit. City Code, Chapter 26 Section Mr. Franke reported the following: The concrete pavers and fencing had been removed. There were replacement materials staged on the property. Ms. Barthel was on the HARB agenda for May 21, 2015 for approval of paving and fencing materials. He suggested continuing the case until June 9, 2015 to allow

7 this Board to hear the HARB decision. Mr. Rosenthal moved to approve the continuance until the June 9, 2015 meeting. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion and was approved by 6. REVIEW OF NEW CASES None. 7. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS None. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Rosenthal reported that he would be out of the town and asked that the Vice Chair sign the orders from this meeting. 9. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 3:41 P.M. William Rosenthal, Chairperson Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator 7