Property Rights versus the Tree

The "whether or not" this tree, a massive and very old Heritage Oak, will be removed question has spurned some passionate debate in the community....

There is an issue brewing regarding the development of a lot in Escambia County that may result in the loss of this giant Heritage Oak tree (pictured above).

I'm told this particular tree is one of the largest measured in the county.  When I spoke to a staff member about this matter yesterday-I asked him 

"How old do we think that tree is, anyway?"  

to which he replied

"I'm not sure, but we have an aerial photograph from 1951 and the tree was big and it was there already." he stated.   "Interestingly--there was an even bigger one on the lot at that time, but it has obviously been taken down at some point since that picture was taken, at a time when people did not object to tree removal."

I asked another staff member about the process and our language--as some voices have insinuated that the county's ordinance on tree removal was not followed.

"Commissioner, that's not true.  Now, our language is not the strongest, and it is subjective, but this applicant brought his first plan to expand his business and it included the removal of the tree.  And we denied that permit!"  he explained.  

"The requester followed our process which requires an applicant take reasonable steps to protect the trees on a lot slated for development.  This person did that, and brought back a plan that shaved about 12,000 SF off of the building he wants to construct--in order to save the tree.  But that plan wouldn't work either, as the tree's critical root mass covers nearly half of the lot.  So this individual met the spirit of the ordinance, he tried to come up with a revised plan that saved the tree." stated this senior employee with whom I spoke.  "But that tree and it's root mass takes so much of the lot--to save it would have meant the expansion of the owner's business couldn't happen.  But I want you to know this---he has to pay mitigation if he takes the tree down--and for the whole lot it is $24,000.00 in mitigation" he concluded.

I asked him point blank:  "From a policy perspective--can we help you by creating a better ordinance--with more specificity in the language?"

"Yes, that would help commissioner, yes it would" was his response.

When the critical root zone of this massive tree is analyzed--it becomes readily apparent that about 50% of the property is covered by the tree and its root mass.

The permit has been issued and there is the potential that tree could be taken down imminently--however there has been a complaint lodged, so this issue may go before the board of adjustment (BOA).

Ideally, nobody wants to take a Heritage Oak tree like this down.  Obviously, it would be great to find a way to design around it.  But at some point, if that's not possible, it seems ridiculous to tell someone on their own property and after attempting to save the tree in the design (unsuccessfully) and after paying $24,000.00 in mitiagation--that they can't take a tree down on their own property.

I know opinions vary--and I know there is a balance between our ordinances, public interest, and property rights.

But at the end of the day if the process was followed these sorts of issues must have a clear path to resolution.  

Perhaps creating better language will facilitate this.  We will see.

So I'll be looking into the language so that we can make it a  cleaner process--we will see if it finds support on the board.