June 19 City Council meeting notes:
At Thursday night’s City Council meeting, members ultimately voted unanimously to send the controversial tree ordinance back to city staff.
Councilman P.C. Wu was the only member absent. Mayor John Fogg said Wu was out of town on Rotary International business.
Initially, Councilman Mike DeSorbo made the motion to refer the proposed amendment back to staff to make changes to its residential and appeals process portions.
DeSorbo and others said average citizens do not realize the impact of the ordinance, and will not until they’re in that situation.
DeSorbo noted the total costs for a homeowner to take down and replace a heritage tree, with the permitting and required replacement trees, could run from $6,000 to more than $10,000.
City Manager Tom Bonfield asked DeSorbo exactly what kind of residential property he was referring to, and DeSorbo said single family.
But then, future City Attorney Rusty Wells approached City Attorney John Fleming and whispered something in his ear.
Next, Fleming said the city staff had alternative language prepared that would eliminate the residential portion.
Councilman Jack Nobles, who seconded DeSorbo’s motion, said repeatedly he wanted to hear it.
Bonfield said he hadn’t seen the revisions, and he and Fleming said they wouldn’t advise it.
“You run the risk of doing things quicker than you may need to,†Bonfield said.
“I’m just curious to see what’s transpired,†Nobles said.
“Me, too,†someone yelled.
Sherry Morris, the city’s planning services administrator, went over the new language, which she said would remove residential property from mitigation requirements, not permitting requirements.
Councilman Mike Wiggins noted he’s concerned about the appeals process on the commercial side. He said for developers and others who have specific situations with large tracts of land, he wants to make sure that they have an appeals process.
Councilman Marty Donovan said he believes it’s a personal property rights issue.
Thaddeus Cohen, the city’s director of community development, said the Planning Board has discussed the issue for seven months, and the city has sent out e-mail notifications of its meetings and agendas to homeowners’ associations.
A number of audience members spoke to council about the issue.
One of them was Hal Major, and East Hill resident who works for Habitat for Humanity.
The agency, Major said, is concerned about anything that would raise costs or limit its ability to acquire land for homes. “So we very much support this going back to staff.â€
Major added that folks he had spoken with weren’t aware of the issue. “People didn’t know. They didn’t know. That really concerns me.â€
Councilman Sam Hall spoke of when council members receive their informational packages, on the Thursday night before the Monday’s city committees meetings.
Without being specific, Hall said: The mayor may be uncomfortable with my comments, but this is even more reason it should be sent back to staff. “So that council will have full opportunity to have full participation in it.â€
An Emerald CoastKeepers attorney offered a mea culpa, telling council members that after 1,200 man hours said he failed to remove mitigation language for residential.
A gentleman speaking on behalf of Moulton Properties said the impact on commercial would be even greater than residential. In some areas, costs would increase four-fold, the representative said.
Two city residents said if people knew a tree could cost them $10,000, council chambers would be packed, standing-room-only.
DeSorbo pointed out the Planning Board’s meeting dates and agendas on the city website. “I don’t know what more we can try to do to get (information) out to the people.â€
Peoples’ antennas don’t go up, the councilman added, until it affects them. “And that’s when we’re going to hear from them.â€