Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

City Council sets aside ideas on tree protection

Despite creating a committee for the matter, council members put off major decisions.

By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER
Published April 29, 2005

TAMPA - After buzz saws swiped several oak trees in his Sunset Park neighborhood, Wofford Johnson agreed to sit on a committee for the past year to propose better tree protections in the city's code.

So Johnson was miffed to learn that the Tampa City Council voted Thursday to shelve the committee's recommendations for the next few months - and he wasn't even invited to make comments.

"It's upsetting," Johnson said, after he learned of the vote from a neighbor. "If they're talking about not making any changes, then why did we waste a year? It would have been nice if someone had notified us that this meeting was taking place."

The committee's recommendations aren't dead yet. But Thursday's vote by City Council members delayed a decision on more crucial changes that just a few months ago were touted as major improvements to city code.

Council member Linda Saul-Sena, who formed the 11-member committee in January 2004, said she was disappointed that few of the recommendations would be considered for now.

"The list is more modest than what we (the council) discussed before," Saul-Sena said. "We weeded out the controversial stuff, which is a little frustrating because I think the controversial stuff is needed."

In the pared-down version, out went a recommendation to classify more trees as grand and to simplify the identification of such trees. Right now, a complicated point system identifies which trees are grand and, therefore, illegal to remove. The committee recommended trunks with diameters of 34 inches or 108 inches in circumference should be considered grand, a classification that would increase the number of protected trees.

The committee also wanted greater protection of roots, which if nicked or damaged can lead to the death of a tree.

Recommendations came from a committee that had seven members who were either builders and developers, or worked for them. Some of the committee's recommendations made it easier to remove certain trees. Those weren't included, either.

One proposal would have allowed a developer to remove 75 percent of trees on lots that require 18 inches of fill dirt, rather than the 50 percent allowed now. That idea was trimmed. Also, a provision allowing the removal of trees with diameters of less than 10 inches was also pruned.

Instead, the City Council approved a leaner, more simplified list of changes that included updating the technical manual that guides inspectors, builders and homeowners about the city's rules and a requirement that a certified arborist must supervise the trimming of grand trees.

"We need to take a step back to move forward," said Thom Snelling, the city's land development manager. "What got this effort started was the need to improve enforcement. But what the committee came up with didn't address enforcement."

Also, two agencies that oversee tree removal regulations, Parks and Recreation and Business and Housing Development, have chiefs who hadn't been hired until recently. A delay in the vote over all of the committee's recommendations was needed so that the two new chiefs could review them, said the city's naturalist, Steve Graham.

Cynthia Miller, the new director of business and housing development, wants to bolster enforcement by establishing a 24-hour hotline that neighbors can call to complain about rogue tree removals.

Miller also wants better posting of permits on job sites to distinguish legal removals from illegal ones.

"Let's get better enforcement, then consider changes to the law," Miller said. "Let's see how this process works. If it works, then maybe in a few months, we don't need to change the law."

Michael Van Sickler can be reached at 269-5312 or mvansickler@sptimes.com

[Last modified April 29, 2005, 00:33:10]