Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
March 16, 2016 4:52 p.m.
There seems to be no disagreement that trees are an integral part of the Amelia Island landscape and experience. People who live on or visit the island appreciate the aesthetic, environmental, and even cost-saving benefits of trees. But the Fernandina Beach City Commission does not appear convinced that a formal but advisory tree commission is the best method for protecting city trees.
Three members of the Amelia Tree Conservancy (ATC)—Chair Margaret Kirkland, Landscape Architect Arthur Herman and Civil Engineer Robert Prager—appeared before the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) on March 15, 2016 to advocate for the creation of a tree commission. After 52 minutes of presentation, staff and public input, and commissioner discussion, commissioners appeared unconvinced that the plan presented was the most efficient and effective way to promote greater sensitivity in dealing with tree removal throughout the city. Pulling upon their expertise and research among other communities’ approaches to tree preservation, the ATC presenters had suggested that the city create a Tree Commission to elevate the quality of development through a knowledge-based system for managing the urban forest. They expressed their belief that Fernandina Beach and the unincorporated areas of Amelia Island are at a critical point in terms of losing the remainder of the maritime forest canopy that provides important benefits to the health, well-being and economic future of area residents.
Commissioners lauded the efforts of the ATC with respect to saving trees and improving the development scheme for the Shell Cove project. However, they expressed concerns over adding an additional layer of bureaucratic review for new projects, suggesting that perhaps the current, informal role of the ATC in an advisory capacity might be the best way to continue. Some commissioners also raised concerns with respect to property rights. Commissioners expressed doubt that the problem was as grave as the ATC believed, suggesting that while the city has a tree ordinance, the unincorporated area of the island seemed to be an area of greater concern.
It was the consensus of the FBCC that the ATC revisit their recommendations to develop a detailed, less bureaucratic approach that would emphasize education outreach to property owners and developers.
ATC members stressed that the tree commission recommendations would only be advisory to the FBCC, which would make the final decision. Arthur Herman told commissioners that the tree commission would have “no power whatsoever.”
This statement caused Commissioner Tim Poynter to ask, “So then what?”
Commissioner Roy Smith asked audience member and tree commission advocate Diana Herman what would have happened if after working with the Shell Cove developers to save the biggest tree, the developers had said no, that’s not going to happen. “How would you have taken that?” he asked.
Herman said, “We would have said okay. But I think the community would have come out. I don’t know that you know this, Roy, but you should know this as a commissioner, they care about the trees here. The community cares. You think that we are just alone here?”
Smith agreed with her, but pressed on. “You would have kept it up, I assume.”
“No,” Herman said, “that would have been the end of it. What else could we do? We did our best. Do you know how many times we have compromised? We’ve done it very often.”
Vice Mayor Robin Lentz tried to grapple with the process that the ATC envisioned, thinking out loud that if the tree commission would only be advisory, why would the city be adding another layer to building permit review. Lentz suggested that a better way to get the desired outcome might be through education and positive reinforcement, possibly in terms of incentives for developers.
Kirkland interrupted the exchange between Herman and Lentz to remind commissioners that the tree commission would be a separate body, not the Amelia Tree Conservancy. “I want to make sure that everyone is clear that this is not about us,” she said.
City Attorney Tammi Bach addressed Lentz’ process questions. She said, “I imagine this could be for as small a process as a swimming pool to an entire subdivision.”
Senior Planner Kelly Gibson weighed in, adding that it was important to define scope of work for the tree commission. “Are we talking about all projects in the city, anything that would involve tree removal? Or are we talking about development generally. That’s an important distinction we’ll have to make.” Gibson said that typically she would learn about a new development at the pre-application process, not before. “That would be the first point of contact to engage a tree commission,” she suggested.
Following that discussion engineer Nick Gillette told commissioners that he believed that by working with the ATC, developers of the Shell Cove project on Citrona Street had produced a better product. However, he added that in order to save the one tree that the ATC had passionately argued to keep cost the company $30,000 in both staff time and actual construction expense. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said. “It made a better product. It looks far better. But if the developer had chosen not to do so, I’m not sure what the recourse would have been. I’m just concerned about [a tree commission member] sitting on the Technical Review Committee who doesn’t know the code, but knows what he wants. The code is the code and we all have to follow it.”
Gillette turned toward the ATC presenters, adding, “These are all great people. But what happens when the people who replace them come in? They may not share the same agenda. … I’m just concerned about long term effects.”
Bach continued to discuss process concerns, suggesting that she, the city manager and city staff would need to brainstorm to develop a list of all policies, ordinances, etc. that would be impacted by the creation of an advisory tree commission. Currently, Gibson and the ATC interact regularly on a voluntary basis.
Vice Mayor Lentz spoke to the restrictive nature of the current city tree ordinance that will not even allow her to cut down a tree in her own yard to put in playground equipment for her children. She said the heightened concerns about island trees dates back to the “massacre” of trees that occurred in the county portion of the island to build a gas station several years ago. She asked why the ATC was not taking the problem to the county.
Kirkland responded, saying that she has been working with county staff in hopes of enacting a tree ordinance similar to the city’s that would apply to the county portion of the island. “We would like to have a tree commission that would apply to the whole island,” she said. “We will also be approaching the county on this. As it happened we approached the city first because Kelly was working on revising the city’s tree ordinance. It seemed to be the right time.”
Commissioner Len Kreger suggested that it made more sense to have the experts involved early in the process in an advisory capacity as an asset to the Community Development Department. He expressed his opinion that an informal process could be more productive than a bureaucratic one, especially in dealing with issues of property rights.
City Attorney Bach returned to the discussion of process, informing commissioners and the presenters that a formal advisory committee involved more bureaucracy than just another layer of review. Sunshine Law, notice of meetings, official minutes and other “bureaucratic requirements” would also kick in.
Mayor Johnny Miller asked Kirkland, “Has anything negative happened in the city subsequent to our adoption of a tree ordinance that could have been avoided if we had a tree commission?”
Kirkland replied, “It’s not just a matter of one thing. We are working with the county to try to get the county to make changes as well for the island. That’s about as far as we can reach. … If you look at GoogleEarth aerial views of the island, we have a tree canopy problem, where we have lost a lot of trees.”
Miller continued, asking Kirkland to explain the specific problem within the city. “What is our ordinance not doing now that it needs to do?” he asked.
“I don’t know if this is anything that an ordinance can ever resolve,” Kirkland responded. “This is a matter of educating people, changing the culture. It’s a matter of many things that you cannot legislate.”
Miller said, “That’s my question. So how does the City Commission fix that problem, that the ATC can’t do, as it stands now? How are you not able to educate people now?”
Kirkland explained that by linking the tree commission with the city’s Planning Department, there would be a good flow of information at the right time in the development process, which could lead to a successful negotiation process to save trees, as opposed to just dealing with hard and fast rules in an ordinance.
Miller asked, “So then you are saying that our tree ordinance is too restrictive?”
“I’m not saying that at all,” Kirkland quickly replied. “I’m just saying we need more tools than just the ordinance.
“So what tools do we need to add to make the ordinance more effective?” Miller pressed.
“I’m not sure it’s about adding tools to the ordinance. But adding tools to the city’s approach and the county’s approach to dealing with maintaining our canopy. One thing I’ve mentioned is having an arborist, having a tree commission, and doing the things that [Senior City Planner Kelly Gibson] is already doing. Going out and getting grants to support a [tree] inventory.”
Miller supported the notion of requiring an arborist’s review of a proposed development site plan. Kelly Gibson said that the city is always looking for ways to improve the existing city tree ordinance.
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.