Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Tampa moves to better protect grand old trees

The City Council is about to review a revised tree and landscape code. Some developers are less than thrilled.

By SHERRI DAY
Published January 21, 2005

TAMPA - Blame it on the 2003 fracas in Old Hyde Park over the Leiman House property and the big oak tree. Or the community's reaction to a Davis Islands developer who decided to pay a $3,500 fine for the right to topple a pair of large oaks.

Of course, it could have been the two Palma Ceia homeowners who claimed they needed to cut down a grand oak that threatened to damage their house. After getting the city's permission to chop down the tree, the homeowners sold to a townhouse developer.

The impetus for retooling the city's tree and land use code is debatable. But the result is clear: City officials want to make sure that chain saws and grand trees rarely meet. They also want property owners to know the difference between protected trees and those that are not.

Over the past year, a committee of developers, architects, arborists, activists and city staffers has met to revise the tree and landscape code. Officials in the city's Land Development Coordination office plan to present the committee's recommendations to the City Council next month, city zoning coordinator Gloria Moreda said. Once the council examines the plan, it will go to the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission for review.

"We achieved 90 percent consensus on what's in the plan," said City Council member Linda Saul-Sena, a committee member who pushed for changes in the current code. "We have a few issues on which the homeowners and the development communities don't agree, and those will come before City Council. I think we did a great job."

Chief among the changes are procedures for determining whether a tree qualifies for legal protection. Under the current plan, property owners have to consider a tree's canopy, diameter and health. Under the new plan they would only measure the tree's diameter. That matches a rule already in place for trees outside city limits.

The old plan protects trees 5 inches in diameter. Trees would now have to be 10 inches in diameter to receive consideration. To trim a grand tree, property owners would have to hire a certified arborist.

Other alterations to the code, which also sets landscaping rules, will affect builders and developers. Anyone who requests a waiver to reduce city-mandated landscaped areas on a lot will find that permission costs, Moreda said. The money will go into a fund used for acquiring future green space.

"We hope that it's a much more understandable and clear document on what the requirements are," said Moreda, who expects the revisions to aid homeowners and developers.

Developers are already bristling at some of the proposed changes.

Joseph Narkowitz, executive vice president of the Tampa Bay Builders Association, said there was no need to alter the tree code.

"Tampa doesn't have a tree problem," Narkowitz said. "All they're trying to do is to make the regulations more onerous and more difficult for the property owners to manage the trees that they have."

In particular, Narkowitz objects to a proposed rule that institutes a two-year building moratorium on the spot where a property owner cuts down a grand tree.

Arborists and preservationists have long called for stronger tree protection rules. But a series of well-publicized tree cuttings in 2003 galvanized support for the issue.

At the center of the maelstrom was Guy Burns, a longtime Tampa lawyer who bought the historic Leiman house on Newport Avenue. Burns initially wanted to expand his garage and guest house and build a pool house. When city officials discouraged him, he decided to sell one of the property's three lots to a local tennis star, Gigi Fernandez.

Burns' neighbors complained that putting another home so close to the Leiman House would spoil its architectural charm and, possibly, result in the death of a large oak tree on the property. Both sides dug in, but Fernandez backed down first. She eventually abandoned plans to buy the lot.

Still, the tree's fate was sealed. A vandal cut a ring around its base and injected it with poison. Burns paid $5,000 in city fines and had the tree removed after city inspectors said it was dead.

He sold the Leiman House last summer, discarding plans to shorten his commute from St. Pete Beach.

He doesn't want to hear about the new tree code proposal. The mention of it brings back bad memories, including death threats and nasty letters and voice mails. Since he ran afoul of local tree activists, he has been reluctant to talk tree issues.

"It seems as though there are people out there who think that trees are more important than people," Burns said.

He added: "Somebody vandalized a tree. I spent over $10,000 in lawyer fees, fines, etc., and at the end of the day, the tree's gone anyway. This whole thing is kind of a star-crossed experience."

[Last modified January 20, 2005, 08:52:11]