Good afternoon.

Board is called to order on January twentieth.

Welcome everyone.

If you please rise and join me with the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, in occasion now.

Sure.

Okay.

And make decisions in accordance with the laws of the city.

Thank you for the grace and mercy in our lives.

Liberty and Justice Pro.

This board consists of seven members and one alternate who are appointed by the city council and serve voluntarily.

I am Michael Bootskas, and I will ask the other members and the staff to introduce themselves, beginning on my left.

Andy Park.

Jay Daniel, attorney for the board.

Rosemary Call, City Clark.

Matt Minnesota, Assistant City Attorney.

Ted Kozak, Clayman and Development.

Lauren Matsky, Planning and Development.

Diane Achinelli.

Kurt Heinrichs.

Michelle Chenol.

Andrew Hupp.

Please remember to turn off your cell phone so that they do not become a distraction during the meeting.

Please also refrain from having conversations in this room so that we might hear all the testimony given today.

To ensure a complete record of this board's actions, we ask that each individual wishing to speak, including the applicant, speaking to the microphone at the podium in front of us.

Clearly state your name and spell your last name for the clerk.

Now I will ask all those in attendance today who plan to speak to please rise and be sworn in by the clerk.

Raise the right hand.

Yes.

Thank you.

Agendas of today's meeting on the podium to your left near the entry door.

Also on this podium are a roster of the community development board, the list of city staff and experts and their resumes, the board's rules of procedure, and the annual schedule of this board.

Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

May I have a motion for approval of the minutes.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

Do I have second?

Second.

Motion made and seconded.

Any discussion?

There being none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

This board has adopted.

Oh, excuse me.

Is there any person wishing here today wishing to address the board on matters that do not appear on today's agenda?

Seeing none, we'll continue on.

This board has adopted a consent agenda format and the consent items are identified as such on the agenda.

Consent agenda items are those items for which the planning and development department recommends approval and the applicant is in agreement with any proposed conditions.

Please note that written comments to the case that have been received to date do not result in any item being removed from the consent agenda.

Items may be removed from the consent agenda today by a member of the board and member of the staff or any person in the audience for questions or objections.

I will read each item on the consent agenda.

And if any person wishes to remove this item from the consent agenda, please so state or raise your hand, and we will remove it from the consent agenda.

Items removed from the consent agenda will be heard in the regular order of the meeting.

Items that remain on the consent agenda will be approved with a single vote as to each type of hearing.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to interrupt you.

You have a couple of requests for continuance before you get to the individual items on the consent agenda.

Okay, please.

We'll approach those first.

There are two requests for continuances on today's agenda.

They are for um item 4.1, CPA 2025-1000, comprehensive plan amendments to establish a new planned redevelopment district, overlay future land use category with associated bonuses and incorporate policies for a new North Greenwood community overlay district.

Does anybody wish to have uh what that we'll do continues as well as one motion?

It seems like it'd be the same applicant technically, right?

Okay.

And next is 4.2 LUP 2025-11005, a city initiated amendment to the future land use map to apply a new plan to redevelopment district overlay to the area encompassing the North Greenwood CRA boundary.

And that's probably sufficient to get everybody to notice where we're at.

Do we have a motion to continue from anyone?

Do we have any questions of the city?

I move to continue case number 4.1 CPA 2025 one-1001 and point to LUP 2025-11005 on today's agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the application and staff report, and hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the staff report with conditions of approval as listed.

Last part we've already approved.

Yeah.

Okay, so that works.

Second.

Motion made and second.

Is there any discussion?

There being none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Back to the consent agenda.

I've read the introductory portion already.

Now I'll begin reading the cases so we can uh see which ones we may not consent.

First matter is FLD 2025-07017 and TDR 2025-07001.

Uh this is a flexible development approval to add one resort attached dwelling unit through a transfer of development rights as part of a proposed six resort attached dwelling units in a tourist zoning district and the old Florida District of Beach by Design for the property located at 612 Bay Esplanade.

Does anybody wish to have this matter removed from the consent agenda?

All right.

Mr.

Chair, just so you know, we did provide the board with the memo that added an additional condition of approval.

We just want to make sure that was incorporated to whatever.

Whatever motion we have, yeah.

You see that.

And the other two relate to the appeals.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for bringing for bringing up to my attention.

Next item on the consent agenda is FLD 2025-08021.

Approval for an existing two net resort attached dwelling in the tourist zoning district in the old Florida District of Beach by design for the property located at 26 Hylerwood Street.

Does anybody wish to have this item removed from the consent agenda?

Seeing none, that will remain.

And next one is FLD 2025-09023, a flexible development approval for the conversion to retail sales and services, a wellness clinic in the office district as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project for the property at 611 Druid Road East Suites 305 and 306.

Does anybody wish to have this matter removed from the consent agenda?

There being none.

Do I um as noted by the city?

Um there is an additional conditional of approval for uh FLD 2025-07017 and TDR 2025-07001, which was item 5.1 on the consent agenda.

So with that in mind, that would be part of any motion for approval we would have today.

So do I have a motion to approve the items of the consent of that?

A motion on the consent agenda.

I make a motion to approve the three items on the consent.

I'll be happy to read that to you, Mr.

Joneson.

Uh two point uh condition approval number 22.

Prior to the issuance of any permits utilizing the transfer development rights, a special warranty deed transferring the development rights prepared to the city satisfaction shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any permits.

Thank you for asking that question.

Okay.

Continue with your motion.

I'm sorry.

I've motion to approve the three cases, starting with 5.1 FLD 2025 07017-TDR2025-0701.

5.2, which is FLD 2025-08021.

5.3 FOD 2025-09023.

I move to approve these cases on today's consent agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the application and staff report, and hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of the laws stated in the staff reports with conditions of approved as listed.

Together with this amendment.

Along with the conditional approval that prior to the issuance on item number 5.1 that prior to the issuance of any permits utilizing the transfer development rights, TDRs, a special warranty deed transferring the development rights prepared to the city.

Satisfaction shall be executed and recorded prior to issuance of any permits.

Thank you.

Do we have a second on that motion?

Second.

Motion may be seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Here being none.

All in favor of motion, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

The next item on our agenda is 6.1 appeals.

We don't do a lot of appeals, but so I'm certain, Mr.

RJ.

We followed level three, more or less procedures.

Actually following level two.

Level two.

Just want to make sure that I read the correct instructions.

And so same as a level two case.

Very good.

And now we'll read those procedures and we'll just go on to that matter.

All level two cases, such as flexible development, are considered quasi judicial hearings.

In quasi-judicial hearings, the community development board reviews the application, the staff report, correspondence, and all evidence presented today, and makes the final decision subject to appeal.

This board has previously qualified all the city staff who will testify as experts in the area of professional training, education, and experience.

The board shall determine whether or not to qualify the person as an expert and in what field of study.

At the beginning of each level two case, I will ask for anyone who wishes to request party status to come forward and state your reasons.

Party status may be granted if the person requesting such status demonstrates that he or she is substantially affected person.

The board will then determine whether or not to grant party status.

Then the case will proceed as follows.

Requests for party status, presentation by planning and development staff, 10 minutes maximum, presentation by the applicant, 10 minutes maximum.

Presentation by persons with party status, five minutes per party maximum.

Cross-examination of witnesses by planning and development staff, cross-examination of witnesses by applicant, cross-examination of witnesses by persons with party status.

Comments by the public, three minutes per person.

Closing remarks by the planning and development staff, three minutes maximum.

Closing remarks by the person granted party status, three minutes maximum, and closing remarks by the applicant, three minutes maximum.

Then we'll close the public hearing and have a discussion and vote by the board.

Our first level two case today is APP 2025-12001.

It's the appeal of a denial of a minimal state minimum standard development tree removal permit medium density, medium high density residential district for the property located at 1934, Marlington Way.

Requested is to approve to remove a shade tree, a live oak adjacent to the Southeast property line and replace with two accent trees, Great Myrtle, adjacent to the Southwest property line.

And that's the description of the case today, and believe we're ready to proceed.

Before we go forward, I did want to it's kind of partly public service, but also so people are aware there was an email to this case that went out to the um party that is appealing.

And uh it sought to collect a development services review fee of some three and a half thousand dollars.

It looked very official, it had the city of clear order logo on it, um, and it had uh at the very bottom community development board chair boots and invoice attached and instructed the person receiving it not to respond in any other way by email, and they would be given wire instructions and then they had to make sure all the details are correct so the wire can be confirmed.

That did not come from the city, it certainly did not come from me.

Um but uh I bring it to people's attention because I think that the applicant uh or the appellant was was wise in capturing capturing that and bring it to the city's attention.

Um there are a lot of scams out there nowadays, and this is about one of them.

Um, and uh the city wouldn't be communicating that way.

Um it was a very interesting email address.

I think it was something like City of Clearwater Community Development Board, something else at USA.com.

So it was not the typical city domain and the email, and I think that might have been what triggered them, but uh we appreciate the fact that they reached out and we were able to clarify for the for them that this was not a city request, and please don't be fooled.

So that's part public service, but also so it's clear to everybody that we weren't looking to do anything unusual here, certainly not me.

At least it didn't come from an air prince this time.

Pardon me?

At least it didn't come from an air prince this time.

That's true.

That's true.

Uh you never know.

I'm not an Arab Prince either, so that's good to so we want to proceed.

Um I think the appellant took him, he said three seconds to realize is fraudulent this morning.

So that's that yeah.

It I looked at it and I'm like, okay, well, of course, for what I said saw my name, I said there's got to be fraudulent, but that I do appreciate it being public potential.

So do we need to do request for party status first?

Oh, I'm sorry, request for party status.

Thank you.

Does anybody wish to seek party status in this case?

Seeing none, then uh does any board member wish to have any uh disclose any ex-party communications on this appeal?

Other than that email, none.

Okay, so let's go ahead and proceed then.

All right, I got a couple expert witnesses for the board today.

First, I'd ask the board accept Mr.

Ted Kozak as an expert witness in general planning, zoning, annexations, land use, rezoning amendments, demographics, site plan analysis of the land development code, land development code amendments, comprehensive planning, special area plans, and overlay districts, tree rating assessment, inventory, tree preservation techniques, Florida grades and standards for landscape materials and trees, International Society of Archiculture Standards, land development code regarding trees and landscaping, and all that matters he is about to testify here on.

My Lord Ted.

I was so motion to accept.

Do you want to do them all in one motion or um I was gonna do them one at a time?

Okay, we'll do what we'll do.

Do you have a motion to accept Mr.

Kozak as an expert?

I move to approve Mr.

Kozak as an expert.

Second, second.

Motion made and second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Please proceed.

Next, I'd ask the board accept Mr.

Robert Robichot as an extra witness in tree rating assessment inventory, tree preservation techniques, erosion and sediment control for construction, Florida grades and standards for landscape material and trees, International Society of Arbicture Standards, Land Development Code regarding trees and landscaping, and all that matters he is about to testify here on.

Do I have a motion to accept this expert?

I make a motion we accept Robert Roboshow as an expert witness.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Do you have any more?

Is that all I got for today?

One of these three.

And um Jay, just want to check with you.

It's an appeal, but do we go first the city first, or do we go up first?

Yeah, no, I appreciate the question.

The code requires us to handle this in the standard quasi judicial under our procedures.

It is important to note here though that when you get to the end, and this is set out in your staff report, but we're what you're looking for here is if you if you intend to move or find that the evidence supports granting the appeal, and thereby overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, you would need to make three findings that are set forth in 4-504 sub-B.

Um and sub B requires that you make those findings.

And the first is that the decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the development code.

And that the decision of the board will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this development code.

Not the decision below, the decision of this board will be in harmony.

Okay.

And finally, that the decision of the board will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.

You would need to make a positive finding on all three of those to reverse or modify the decision appealed from.

I know we don't do these a lot, that was it out in your staff report, but I just want to make sure we were you have to cover all three, not just one.

Correct.

So if you're if you're inclined to move that way, that's why we're going to make sure that is clear.

What was the third one again?

That the decision of the community development board will not be detrimental to the public health safety and general welfare.

So page six of the staff report, right before where it's signed by Mr.

Kozak has those three elements listed on theirs, um, and the code section that that requires that uh so everybody's aware.

So as when we get to the point where we're discussing it, we have a motion.

Uh we can address those three elements.

All right.

So then, since we are going to proceed in the normal order, since we follow that according to the code is written, the city can proceed.

Thank you.

The preamble will take longer than this hearing.

But the uh once again, Ted Kozak planning and development, and to my right is Robert Roboshow.

If we could cue up the PowerPoint.

Thank you.

So this is APP 2025-1201 1934 Marlington Way.

As you can see, the tree at hand is is in the photo.

This is facing towards the home itself.

And this is a as the staff report talks about a tree removal permit appeal.

There was a permit that was uh denied for removal by um land development Arborist staff, uh Robert here, and so we'll we'll go briefly over um some of the PowerPoint elements and uh where this is located.

So the the property is uh and where this orange rectangle is located in the uh uh a townhome development that was previously occupied by a nursery and developed from 2017 to 2019, just northwest of Belcher Road, and this property is uh along the end of a line of town homes, and there's uh a retention uh man-made lake, if you will, just to the back.

So at the time of approval, this didn't need did not need any type of flexibility, so it met code in all respects when it was approved by building permit in 2016-2017.

So there were some uh landscape plans that met code, um site plans that met code, so all everything was in accordance with the approved plans and the community development code, and that was what was built.

Just very briefly, just showing you the zoning district medium high density residential district off of Belcher Road.

Now we'll we'll go through a line of photos since it's it's a little unusual, and just for the record, 2009 was the last time there was an appeal for a tree removal permit.

So every 17 years it's it seems like we do one.

The to the left is uh a visual that's facing towards the house around facing northwest, so you can see mostly the tree crown, and then on the right facing down the street.

We'll see more uh street photos, but this is facing along the the home itself and the uh the root root area, the uh the concrete improvements as such.

Just another visual of the tree facing a little bit that you can see the the tree line street.

So along Marlington Way, they're all the same, um they're all plainted planted around the same time.

So they're they're actually doing all quite well and quite healthy.

Um you can see the root ball there, and they're potentially we we could we'll have a discussion at the very end that there could be some root pruning done, but um essentially staff rep does not recommend the removal of this tree since it is healthy, and then facing down the street, you can see more of those um uh mature and well-growing trees that are in the neighborhood.

And then as discussed, this is the criteria that we are going to consider for the tree appeal pursuant to CEC Section 4 504B.

Substance substantial competent evidence needs to be met, and as already discussed, there are three uh decision appealed as misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted of the provisions of the development code.

The decision of uh not approving the tree removal was was based on ISA standards as well as the other aspects of the the land development code that talks about when it you are eligible to remove a tree.

Uh at this point in time there was none of that criteria met, and then two and three, the decision of the CDB.

So harmony with the general tent and purpose of the code, um staff considers that the as planted it meets the code, and so did the land the landscape plans.

So the the landscape plan and the site plan were approved and were consistent and as planted.

And then finally, the decision of this board, not detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare, listed uh two or three future land use plan element aspects.

So it is staff's thought that the approval of the tree removal permit would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And that I can take questions, and we have a couple things we could show on the I forget what this is called.

I call it an overhead, but this morning we met with the the appellant, and because he did say his residents uh have concerns about future problems with roots per se.

And he asked for suggestions, and you'll see here some if we could turn this on some ways that you could mitigate future root growth at this time.

The tree isn't large enough that it's it's uh an immediate impact or problem.

However, trees grow just like humans.

So on the left would be potentially a tree without any type of root mitigation or prevention measures.

On the right is a uh snippet of one of the many different types of tree uh root mitigation uh companies, and they install other a root barrier and also some chemicals and potentially preventing a rapid growth out that would potentially damage the adjacent concrete improvements.

If we could flip over to another one of these, then that's another visual again, uh cutting off the company name.

There are many different company names, so just sidewalk shield they call this, and then the last example we have here is almost similar to what we see here, a rectangle with future potential impacts to concrete improvements.

So the as this was would be installed as some type of a barrier with some type of chemical prevention measures, and then on top of this, all of these we we did talk with the appellant, he can provide his input on what we said, but he it was uh recepted pretty positively.

Um he would still like to, of course, have this discussion today because it is important and it's obviously important to him and his his neighbors that what could be done in the future, and um it's a common issue throughout the city that and we we really recommend and we we really are very happy that the as a person of his board he is willing to have this discussion.

So at the end that I have nothing else to prepare, so yeah, go ahead if you have any questions, or we can hear from the appellant.

Anybody have any questions of this city staff?

Are there alternatives to removing the tree?

Is there a mitigation bank, or is there anything that you provide for some other substitution of this issue right now?

You mean if removed or if not removed?

I'm not following the question.

If removed, yeah.

The uh if we can remove this, but the appellant offered in his appeal to replace this with two smaller trees on the side.

Is there a mechanism within the city code?

Where I know a lot of trees in my business I've removed, and I had to pay into a fund or something to that effect.

Um for this the uh diameter of the tree.

Do you does the city allow that or no?

We do, but and Robert could respond to that.

Um in this case, since it's fairly new, it's not like an older development that has 30-inch tree that they're mitigating and paying to the tree fund.

In this case, the the inches that would be provided by the appellant with two crepe myrtles versus an oak could offset it, but it doesn't offset the the ones a shade tree, one's an accent tree, one grows 15 to 30 feet high, which is the accent mature trees go 35.

So we can't pay into a fund or anything to that effect.

Generally, we only do that if it's for construction.

Okay.

So this is a simple tree permit that's just stating we want this tree removed and we're gonna replace it as opposed to we're building this, and the tree is going to be too drastically effective to preserve it, but it's a good tree, then we would accept mitigation.

What if he cut it down?

What do you mean?

What's the alternative like tomorrow?

If you used to remove the tree tomorrow, what would what would occur?

It would be a fine.

And that amount is what?

$48 per inch.

That's a 12-inch tree, maybe something like that, eight, maybe so that nine inches.

There also would be potential for code enforcement fines if they did that without a permit.

That would be where the fine would come from.

So it'd be $500 to remove the tree plus or minus pretty much, and then we would require replacement tree.

I don't know what sorry, Lauren Maskey planning and development.

I if if people are intentionally circumventing our rules, which fortunately this this applicant is not, you know, we would have the ability to um request from the municipal code enforcement board uh appropriate fines based on what the situation is.

So while our base code has a cost per inch of tree, we do have the ability to seek something beyond that as irreparable damages or things like that.

So I don't want to get into necessarily less expensive to the case.

Because where my office is on Fort Harris, and we have 15 oak trees in the right-of-way that was planted by the townhouse project, and I assume the city has to maintain those now that they're in the right-of-way, is that correct?

And the entire sidewalk up and down is you know, there's trip hazard, which they express in these notes all along the right-of-way, and the city hasn't done anything about it.

I've tripped over it many times walking down the publics, and you know, I understand oak trees.

I've I live it, I breathe it every day.

Um is there an alternative tree they could plant here versus an oak since they don't like it, a palm tree similar inches or something to that effect?

The it this being a shade tree, and that all the trees that were planted along this tree would be a shade tree.

There are multiple species that would meet that, but at the end of the day, removing a tree every few years just to allow them to grow to a certain point and then cutting them down again would not achieve city goals and policies for shade.

This the uh the intent of meeting the code is moving forward for you know a lifetime of shade.

But beyond that, there are other ways you could address uh their request if for some reason we we considered removal of this tree and up and down the street through a new permit, but again, it's not meeting our criteria, so it's there is a mechanism whether or not we agree with that mechanism is why we're here today.

Could they uplift it and move it to another location within the area?

It's not that old.

I it's as you get a tree is larger than let's say 10 inches, it's it's more difficult to relocate, but it can get expensive.

That even relocating a tree of eight years would probably well over a few thousand dollars without it dying.

I guess I'm sorry, go ahead, Andy.

I yeah, I believe.

You could it's I brought bigger diameter down to the beach and planted it around my house, and when I was building a new home, they were too close to my footprint, and the city wouldn't allow me to move them even though I brought them down, and I did it anyway.

I moved them ten feet farther out and argued with the landscape expert with the city, and I did it on my own anyway.

I'm just wondering if there's an avenue for that because obviously they don't like the location of the tree where it is, and you know, it's their personal preference, and I'm I recognize that now just knowing through my experience throughout the state, yes, there are there are fields that would be far greater for a tree like this, but I've seen far more narrow spaces, and there are opportunities right now while it's younger to get down below in the roots.

You have you could put some vault structural soils, all these are could get really expensive really quickly.

But the quickest and easiest and least expensive is what we just showed here.

With you know, it's gonna slow down the roots, it'll give you maybe 10-20 extra years before you have to move to the next step for potentially you dig down and you now modify the soils and allow the the roots to grow in a different manner.

But uh yeah, I think this is a perfect location for this tree.

It's almost equally in the middle of the rectangle.

So is the owner of the property only wanting to remove the tree simply to protect against a utility infringement, or is he have another personal reason?

What is his real intention just because it might impact utilities that are nearby?

I'm pretty sure all of the above, but he he's I think we can have ready to answer.

Okay, go be speaking next.

I'm not an expert on trees.

I I I sense that there were I I think you used the phrase other mechanisms to work toward a solution.

Did I hear that in terms correctly?

There are, I mean, there are mechanisms that include just removal of tree starting again, and then there's mechanisms like we talked about the tree barriers, the tree prun, the root barriers, the the root pruning, the the structural soils, so incrementally different costs.

But the easy solution, one of the mechanisms which we don't agree with is you remove this tree, which will be a domino effect that others will want the same given to them, and then all the trees will be the same age down the street.

And there is a mechanism through a permitting process.

Is there any type of arborst report provided on this tree?

There is it should be in the um the packet, but here we kept it here just to the arbitrary port from the city.

This is the the R ISISA tree assessment form that was completed for the removal and business takes into account all the the mitigating factors of hazard risk and you explain like what the report is for those the fourth page of the um so the reports is completed to five pages in go hand in hand with the denial in the assessment and why that the city does not find it uh tree removal permit to be meeting the three.

Robert, would you mind just explaining how you go about this when we have a a permit request come in?

Perhaps understanding our process and how something comes about would be helpful.

So in general, uh when a tree permit is submitted, it'll have the location, the species, and the reason for removal on the tree removal application.

Um we will go to the site and do a assessment of the tree, taking in account um everything from the roots to the shoots.

Um we're grading the tree as it is in the field that day.

Um, and if the tree rates below a good tree per our code, three is a good tree.

If it's below a three, then we would issue the removal permit.

If it's a three or greater, we would deny the tree removal permit.

Are these private residences or kind of their privately owned townhouse development?

So are they under an HOA or yes?

It's under an association.

Is it the tree in the common area or is it in their footprint through the whole okay?

There's two minutes.

I think there's two methods.

Is it something that normally you allow tree rule for construction?

I mean, I I don't know.

Is it could he put in for a construction permit to build something there?

Or is that if it's irrelevant to the tree and its footprint, then it would like you can't submit a permit to fix something in your kitchen and then apply for a tree with mobile parts.

I was just thinking like a you know a patio or something like that.

I was not sure.

If allowed, the patio would be allowed.

Obviously, I'm trying to stay in our lane here while we're ruling on if the applicant provided a countering Arbor's report stating some type of damage, what would the city's response be?

We would assess it and obviously have a communication with that person, but we didn't proceed to such report just uh as as we'll find out that the the concern about future impacts to utilities in the Jason Hartskate.

In that circumstance, obviously the ultimate decision would be up to you as to which report.

So that'd be a great question if you'd like to put it up again when it brings up does their presentation and actually have questions of that.

So from one of the pictures, it looks like and correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Um it looks like the tree the utility services are parallel with your tree.

So if the tree damage the utility services, would the city of Clearwater bear that price to fix it?

I mean, I know that just from the box to the house is mine, right?

And then from the box out to the street is yours.

I don't want to speak to that.

Okay, we're we're going way too much.

That's outside of our scope, and our department's not a little bit more.

Mr.

Chairman, let me jump in here.

You certainly thought to ask the question, but I don't know that they need to respond per se.

Yeah, Chairman Clark spoke well about staying in our lane, and I like we don't do these.

I don't I don't think we've had an appeal on this board in five years to my recollection, and not a tree appeal in 17 years.

So uh we are still within the confines of our evidence.

I know that uh it is a natural inclination to look for practical solutions.

Um as much as um those can be achieved to be achieved with the appellate working with the city to do that for our purposes.

We need to conduct our quasi initial hearing based on the evidence that's going to be presented to you and make our decision based upon it.

Do we have any other specific questions for the city?

I'd like to get the appellants' presentation because then I think as part of the crossing examination process, we can go back and ask some additional questions of each that would help us having just one side of the story at this point.

Makes it's taking us down a lot of ifs and what ifs, and that's not really gonna get us a decision.

Or one that would could the same challenge.

So does this anybody have any other questions of the city, or should we have the out controller?

I'll have the app and come forward.

Nobody spoke up fast enough.

Done you had some attachment letters that they didn't ask you.

Oh no, I have those two right now.

No, I just um I'm the one with the tree that we want to take out.

Um I'd like to commend Robert and um Ted, they've done a fine job.

Uh a lot of my questions have already been answered.

And in one of the questions were what's the fine?

And obviously the fine is uh 48 dollars per per inch of tree, it's about a nine-inch tree.

Um my question would be is that a one-time fine, or is it a fine followed on by an additional fine until compliance is um rendered?

So I that I don't I don't know.

Yeah, the board the board isn't able to give you legal advice on that.

I would suggest that um either retain counsel, because I don't want I don't want for anyone on this board to say are the fine's gonna be X and then the fine winds up being X times 35, and then you say, Well, I was I was promised the code enforcement board at as a separate existence, they they operate under Chapter 162.

Uh I think that uh city planning staff has already indicated that a a fine for potentially irremediable or irreparable uh fine can and frequently does extend much greater than that.

So I would I would proceed ext uh I would recommend proceeding with caution, um, but also say that this board cannot cannot render legal advice to you.

No, no, I don't I don't want any long-term headaches.

I mean I want can you speak a little louder or talk at the moment?

Hey, thank you.

How's that?

Better much better.

Okay, sorry, sorry.

Okay, so from a common sense point of view, um it's it's a trip hazard.

Um my concrete driveway has risen up probably about a half inch, you know, maybe three quarters.

Some of my neighbors a little bit more than that.

So you know, yeah, I love the tree, but I also love not being sued.

So we have to somewhat take that into consideration.

Um we have to make a common sense uh decision here.

Um I agree with everything that Ted and Robert presented there.

They they taught me a lot.

And the comment I made to them, I I said I felt like I was teeing off with Tiger Woods.

Um I'm way out of my league.

So um I would commend them that they've done a wonderful job, but I was hoping that the panel could please reconsider my appeal such that we could um come up with a better solution than the root block because um that's gonna cost money.

The in I'm looking for the cheapest solution that that um solves the problem.

And to me, it's removal of the tree, we'll put something else in there, we'll put the great marble alongside the house to block the sun coming in the windows, and away we go.

So that's about all I had to say.

Any questions?

Do you did you uh retain an arborist yourself?

No, no, no.

No, I I relied on on Robert's report.

All right.

How bad is the uh uneven sidewalks?

And it's I mean, if there is there been any accidents whatsoever.

No, as a matter of fact, it's it's not too bad at this point, but if someone were to trip on the sidewalk, I I'm liable.

What's a homeowners association say about it all?

Um I'm actually on the homeowner's board, so I'm kind of the focus of everybody's frustration regarding these trees.

Um we all understand that there were almost 250 trees on the on the property, so we had to put them back somewhere.

They all had to be placed somewhere.

And in nobody has anything against trees, it's just that um where they're sitting right now, it's not not the best place they could be.

I I had a couple other questions, mainly for the city, I guess, but on on at the uh did do something with the roots to condense them or whatever so they don't grow, there's a cost involved.

Yes.

Who picks up that cost?

You or the city?

Um it would be us, homeowners.

And if you don't do anything and just let it grow in 25 years down the road, it's even a worse problem.

Who picks up that cost?

You or the city?

Well, I'll be I'll be replacing concrete.

And I don't know what it costs to replace a slab of concrete, but I'm guessing in the thousands.

Um I'd rather not do that if if I don't have to.

It it seems to me this is I'm just going, you know, it's a black and white issue to meet because I'm uninformed about trees.

But it seems to me if we can mitigate a three or four thousand dollar problem in the future for relatively cheaply now.

Let's do it.

Um that's where I'm coming from.

Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant?

And then we can go do the cross-examination portion where they can each ask, or we can ask each of them kind of questions bantering back and forth.

Is this common?

Is this happening?

And maybe you did mention it to all the other residences down the street.

Um since all these trees appear to be in the same line, yeah, and are growing at kind of the same rate.

Are you getting damage to sidewalks and driveways further down?

Not everyone.

No.

No, it doesn't.

But many of us are, so I don't know if I can't really speak.

I'm sorry, you can't really speak from there.

So I did receive a letter, so if I may speak when when public comment comes, you can definitely address that question.

Yes.

We just can't record you from there either, so that's problematic.

What did you think about the city's suggestion of root pruning to keep damn damage from happening to your drive?

Well, I don't know what it costs.

It seems like it's feasible, but if the cost outweigh the benefit, I don't see it.

Don't see it.

Yeah, we got to we gotta think on.

You know, we have 88 people in the in the neighborhood.

Not everyone has this problem, but enough do that I'm trying to find a solution.

You know, I got I gotta be on the board.

I have to find some kind of solution.

And it's got to be economical if possible.

Do you know what utilities run within that area?

Um water is um if you're facing the tree, the the water is to the right about six feet, and there's an electric um box to the left about seven or eight feet, and um the the sewer line is nowhere near it.

It sewers about um twenty feet away.

So the green box electric that's electric, yes.

Anybody else have any questions on this we're zicky?

We're at the point with um cross-examination.

If there's questions that you want to it might be helpful if we have any additional questions before we open up the public comment to have both Ted and him at the podium, we can ask some questions if anybody has any more questions.

If I'm going about that way, does the city have any cross-examination?

Since nobody's comments, does it have any cross examination?

Do you have any cross?

No, okay.

Do you have any questions of the city that you want to ask them based upon what they said today?

Um, no, but I just want to once again I just want to commend Robert and um Ted for the cooperation.

You did a great job.

Thank you.

Now we'll come to the point of the meeting where you can take comments from the public.

So, sir, if you want to come forward, state your name when you get to the microphone, and please speak in the microphone.

You have three minutes.

Hey guys, thank you.

My name's Tom Ryan.

Uh, I live uh right across the street from uh gym.

I did receive one of the notices as well, and I do have the exact same problem.

Uh, for the record, uh, while I am not an arborist uh and have not submitted myself as an expert in a past life.

I spent over 25 years in the landscape and green industry.

I am an Ohio certified nursery technician, a rainbird tech, and I've managed many commercial properties just like the one I live in now.

Um, just to flesh out some of the issues, according to the University of Florida extension and the Florida Natural Plant Society, a live oak, which is the tree in question.

Uh with live oaks have large spreading canopies, which is one of the limiting factors in using live oats in smaller yards and landscapes.

Um what we saw from the pictures as submitted is that this tree is surrounded on three sides by a driveway, sidewalk, and the road.

Um, the tree that we're seeing is an immature tree.

These trees are gonna get 40 to 80 feet tall by 40 by a hundred feet wide.

And what they'll tell you is that the root systems of these live oats are going to be as wide as the canopy.

Okay, so I have the exact I did bring pictures, I do have one on my phone if you'd like to see it.

My water meter is within three feet, or my water main is within three feet within the root system.

My sidewalk is already buckling, it's up a half inch.

So what we're hearing is solutions that down the road, what we heard is 20 years from now, you might have to replace the tree, but I would respectfully disagree.

What I saw was number three in the code.

I already have a safety hazard.

My wife is over 60 years old, I have grandchildren, and I have a tripping hazard caused by the wrong tree in the wrong place.

Now, I don't know how the landscape plan got approved.

I don't know who put a live oak in that limited space that really doesn't matter.

It's water under the bridge.

I understand shade trees.

I'm a conservationist.

I don't want to see trees removed.

What we have suggested is let's put trees.

You saw the picture of the lake.

We can put shade trees around the lake.

We can do lots of things that are going to protect our neighborhood.

And yes, unfortunately, this is a domino effect because the builder just came in and did this.

We've got sweet gums and we've got live oats throughout the neighborhood.

And you know, in closing, when can I say one more second?

I'll give you a few more seconds.

Go ahead.

When the city of Clearwater needed two clear power lines right outside my neighborhood, they came in and took live outs down and shaved the sidewalk.

So it seems like when there's an issue with general property, we can remove trees and do sidewalks.

And we're simply asking for the same common sense issues.

We'd like to get this issue resolved so that my uh property maintains its valence.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the public who has uh any comments to add on this matter?

So now we shift on to closing remarks by planning and development staff.

Just in in closing, just a reminder that a shade tree, as we talked about, would still be required to be replaced.

So even the two prey myrtles do not qualify.

So new shade tree would be required if so requested to be removed.

And shade tree would include, but not limited to live oak, red maple, sweet gum, all types of species that are in the neighborhood are in.

I want to just go ahead and make a rather boring legal argument to you all, but still one that I think is important.

So, as we know, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means the burden of proving their case is with the applicant, and they must base their evidence on competent, substantial evidence here.

Um we have three different criteria that are laid out for appeals.

The first is that a decision appealed from Ms.

Contrude or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development code.

We did not hear any evidence today supporting this from the applicants, so I thought I would just make that clear to you all.

Um the second criteria, which I do not believe was meant today, was the decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intended purpose of this development code.

I do not believe we heard any testimony on this either.

Number three, my opinion is debatable.

However, this is just my legal argument, but I thought I should point that out to you all because in order to grant an approval of the appeal, that has to be based on competent substantial evidence presented at this proceeding, which I do not believe we heard.

So I have ask a question on it.

Not to the other side, it's closing, it's closing argument.

Well, I'll go do a few more questions before we close the public hearing for your benefit.

I want to see if the appearance has any closing comments.

I just want to follow the procedure.

Yeah.

Procedure laid out.

Do you have any closing argument?

You've got three minutes if you do.

I I'm not able to answer all three conditions of what it takes to uh um override the the uh permit denial.

I'm just gonna go back to common sense again.

And really, what we need in this neighborhood is we need you know, kind of a redo on our uh landscape plan.

Um I would look to to Ted and Robert to help us out with that.

I can show you some pictures of the trip hazards, but it's not gonna matter because we it's like I haven't fulfilled all three uh features that that we had to overcome here.

So um, based on that, um if if we were to um uh approve this override, it'd be it would be greatly appreciated because it would give us a basis to get started on a landscape plan for these trees.

Um we don't have any problem with the homeowners association spending money on uh doing this right, and the the thing that we want to do obviously is mitigate future expenses.

You know, we don't want to throw these people into a situation where uh in five years they're gonna spend five thousand on a on a driveway and then they're gonna replace sidewalks and things like that.

So that's all.

Thank you very much for your time, by the way.

Thank you.

And there are no parties uh party status.

Before I close the public hearing, you had a question.

I want to, I would just want to see if there's any more questions we want to pose so we can then deliberate amongst ourselves rather than start a discussion and have to reopen public comment.

So you had a question.

I have a question for the the expert of the for landscaping.

So this is a large-shaped tree, it's gonna grow very large.

The root wall is going to get very large.

Do you see it problematic that all the utilities within this immediate vicinity of this tree are going to be compromised?

I just had to pay $20,000 to run three-phase power to an industrial building I have because of an oak tree that is probably 20 feet away from where the power line goes underground.

And you have water sewer and electric, it looks like along that whole right-of-way running parallel and then running perpendicular into the building.

So it seems like it's surrounded completely, but you want to go have a hazard to trim around that tree.

Do you see that as a problem going forward over the next five to ten years for every one of these property owners that are where their sidewalks can be pushed up, their utilities are in the way of pruning the roots?

I mean, I wouldn't want to go down there and do that.

Not five to ten years.

No.

If we're we're looking at the we're talking 50 years, we're talking seven years.

And but as I described, there are incremental uh steps that can be taken as the tree grows, it's no different than humans have different incremental steps to keep healthy and consistent in difficult situations.

So not to deflect the question, but there's you could say that that is a rationale for every single tree in the city that could be a problem.

Five years, ten years, twenty years, then we wouldn't have any tree stock whatsoever in the city.

So uh there are steps, and the immediate step could be as I described as simple as some root pruning, very inexpensive.

Then it's it's going to have to step up.

It's the reality of of the urban landscape.

If we were all five-acre parcels and acreages, then it's not going to be an issue.

But it's clear waters clearly an urban communities, and we we value our tree.

So it's a balance, and and again, we're we welcome a dialogue and um work towards every neighborhood that will hopefully have a tree canopy, both in the front and the rear.

To the uh point he posed relative to a new landscape plan, would you permit this current landscape plan now the way you see it set up, or would you look at it differently?

It would be uh if we saw this tomorrow, we'd meet the rationale what we we see all the time.

Uh it meets the requirements of size and spacing and the tree was planted.

There's sometimes builders they put a tree and just jam it right up against a curve, but in this case it was centered at least.

Um but it we we would approve a landscape plan tomorrow.

The question I have for you is looking what the applicant or the appellant asked for was to come back with a plan.

Is there anything in denial of the appeal that would preclude them from doing so?

Is there a time period where they can't come back and ask again, or if if they go get an arborist and they find arbitrary that disagrees or something along those lines, or they come up with a plan that say this, and a community as a whole would like to change our plan so we can not have these issues on ongoing basis into the future.

Is that is any of that precluded by a denial of the appeal?

Ted, if you don't know the answer off the top of your head, I can look it up because I I can only tell you.

Because sometimes you you can't reapply for something within a certain period of time, in which cases remedies are limited.

In other time, other instances it's now the appeal, but if he's gonna be coming back asking for something different, the it does the failure of the appeal preclude him for asking for something different.

I I I would be surprised if it does, but that I don't know the answer to it myself.

So I'm asking.

I don't believe there is one.

I don't believe that.

Well, my guess is it's not gonna be available on Municode.com yet, but that was in the amendments that we brought forward last year, and we streamlined a little bit of it and level one approvals, which a tree removal permit request is.

The time frame delay, generally speaking, where it either has to be substantially different or you have to wait six to nine months.

That would not feel because not have that time frame.

Yeah, because we get appeal, so we got so few appeal frame level one decisions, so it's it's not I didn't I didn't I didn't think that the reset button was gonna happen where he couldn't come back right away, and I just wanted to because I think that that impacts the way I'm looking at this in a lot of ways.

Under a new application or form of a continuance, under a new application, right?

Which but but you know he's got again I think that and we'll get into I'll explain my reasons for that when I we have our discussion because I'm gonna go first and kind of explain some of my thoughts about some of the stuff I see so we're on a on a safe footing from the standpoint of our procedures.

Because I'm gonna go first and kind of explain some of my thoughts about some of the stuff I see, so we're on a on a safe footing from the standpoint of our procedures.

Okay.

I have a question.

Um to whom are you addressing to the city?

Um to Lauren a little bit, but under the CDC section 4-504, the code, the actual code for landscape developments.

I hear from Andy, and I I know personally in Grovewood, our name are literally our sidewalks, are like this.

It's unbelievable.

The trees are the street is lifted up at a big natural hump, a speed bomb that route.

I I see this issue throughout the city in a lot of older communities.

So my question is, and it's pretty broad, but I just wonder if that code should be re-evaluated in a general sense.

I know that's a big broad stroke, but it just seems like that our city is suffering after 50 years later, later, not initially like this one, it's only eight years old, but he's trying to be preemptive and he sees what's coming.

And I'm wondering if maybe we as a city shouldn't look at the code itself and prevent these repetitive situations from occurring throughout the city based on the code.

Why not why not stop it at the beginning and allow shade trees around the water, allow shade trees other places when the development the developer or builder submits that plan?

I I have the benefit not only of a crystal ball, but uh uh past uh at least two three different code updates I've grinded my way through in different municipalities.

Different municipalities of one took 20 years, and the other took five years, and it becomes extremely political.

Okay, and you will get every Sierra Club, every you will get both sides, and I'm just we're we're open to the council's pleasure, but it it's not as simple as and of course you you know I try to stay out of your stay out of your business.

And I know we're gonna go go ahead.

But please, please you have an application before you whether the code showed us should not be modified at some point in the field.

I it's certainly a valid question.

It is, however, not relevant to this proceeding today.

If if I can only because it was asked just one last addendum, is um we we have updated the landscaping code a few times in my tenure here, smaller pieces, not wholesale rewrites, and that would be as an example that some of you may be familiar with, where um prior prior to the more recent changes, I guess it would be in there probably like five, eight years ago or more.

Um landscape islands in parking lots were um much smaller and more frequent, and with that change, we made them you know more fewer but larger, so it's the size of you know two parking spaces instead of one and 20 spaces apart instead of ten, so to give more room for the shade trees to grow.

So there have been incremental changes as needed.

We do try to respond to those things.

We are fortunate.

We actually have five arborists certified arborists just on our planning and development staff, and we have several that are trained in landscape architecture.

So when I when we're speaking to this, it really does come from a broad base of experience and education.

So thank you.

Thank you.

That's great.

Okay, you just so we and then I'm gonna close up the go ahead.

I got the code in front of me actually.

Okay, um, it looks like we're good.

The prohibition on time to apply actually applies to level two cases, it's nine months and then 12 months for level three cases.

This was a level one case, so therefore those time frames would not apply, so they could go ahead and so he can pursue this, continue trying to pursue this, but in a different manner, and I'll again I'll talk I the answer to that question gives me some things I want to say during our discussion up here.

But thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Okay, you got a question, and then very very briefly.

If if the applicant was able to take the tree and um move it for lack of better terms, somewhere else on the property in a manner that kept the tree healthy and sustainable.

Is that something the city would accept?

We we can't look at that in a vacuum it at this point in time uh perhaps, but then you get every tree that violates the land approved landscape plan relocated elsewhere on a on a property.

Then if you shove every tree to the rear, then now you have no street trees, and it's it's completely different than an approved landscape plan.

So it's essentially it would not be approved and to to relocate.

We potentially they could relocate this tree, plant a new tree that's a shade tree again in the same place.

That's slightly better, but it's still not meeting.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment so we can deliberate as a board.

Um usually I'll speak last, but I'm gonna speak first because there's a couple of thoughts I just wanted to share.

I do think that it's very important that we come back to at the end of the day, the three elements, all of which have to be met for us to do the um to grant the appeal and send this back.

Um that being said, the reason why I asked the question about whether the applicant is precluded from starting from scratch, ties in the two fact two things.

One thing that I've seen on this board on my previous tenure uh of two terms, and and now come back on, which is ending soon, um on this tenure is the number of times where people have come to us, and it really does require expert testimony, and we have an expert from the one side, we have no expert from the other side.

There's nothing really to contradict the city's expert here, and that's that's a concern because I think from an equitable standpoint, there may be some other options out there.

It's not for us to figure out what those options are.

So a lot of the if questions, as nice as they are, they don't get us to what our job is.

And had there been expert, we could have asked the experts and decided we feel that this is a more prudent path and reverse the appeal, or we feel the city's path is the more prudent path based upon the expert testimony and stuck with the city's decision.

And we kind of only have the one expert today.

And that uh, and the reason why I asked the question, going back to the question about is he precluded from refiling, he could go out there now, get an arborist, get an expert, identify what the options are, what those costs are, what alternatives are under our code, and go back to the city either with a new application or a proposal.

That might even be something that the association, the HOA comes back with, to try and change what they've got going in their community as a whole for the benefit of the of the members of that HOA.

Um I don't think he's there yet, and I think that option remains, um, and that brings me to the point of the three elements.

I do think that you know, sidewalks being raised up pose a public health safety and general welfare hazard, and it'll only get worse over time.

Um I I am going to guess, um, but I don't think it's relevant whether I guess or not.

So, but I'm just gonna point out there as a guess.

I'm gonna guess that the either the HOA or the homeowners are responsible for their sidewalks.

I do know that in other parts of the city they have gone and shaved sidewalks where there are oak trees and a lot of paths and trails.

Uh I live in the countryside area near Chautauqua Park, and the sidewalks that go along the whole back neighborhood on a driveway that takes you back to the park have all been shaved and in some instances replaced just because people use it on the regular basis for exercise and the like, and they prevent the trip hazard.

So the city does do that on the sidewalks it controls.

But in many HOAs, those lot lines either go to the middle of the street or to the curb, and the sidewalks are maintained by the HOA or the property owner.

Um and so I I don't know which way it is here, but I I think that there are ways to also take care of the sidewalk without impacting or compromising the tree.

Um, and those shaving the concrete for the uneven stuff is something that's actually fairly cost effective and works as well to reduce that safety hazard that might be posed to others.

Um I'm an attorney, I don't do personal injury laws, so I'm a transactional attorney, but I do know that uh you know, when you own real estate, you're liable for anything and everything that happens down there, whether you cause there or not, because you're the owner of the real estate.

And uh, and but that's a fact of owning real estate.

Uh you don't have that responsibility when you're a tenant, you don't have that responsibility in other situations, but when you own the real estate, it's part of what goes with it.

Um, and and I think it's significant in that respect.

I do think just to share from a personal experience for the applicant, um, and part of what you know we apply common sense and we apply what we uh what we know from uh our experience in the past.

Um I have two trees on my property that I would love nothing more than to remove.

One of them has lived in my driveway up close to an inch and a half on the part that's closest to my garage.

Uh I didn't apply, I hired an arborist.

And the arbor said this tree is healthy.

Um, it's this type of an oak, it's not likely going to get removed five or ten years from now.

Call me up again, we'll take a look at it because of the age of the tree and the likely, and there are other factors that might result in a zero permit.

You're gonna have to replace with other things, but you're not gonna get it now, and I it still sits there today.

Um, and our neighborhood was developed in the late 1980s, early 1990s.

The trees, the tree in front of my house is probably planted in like 92 or 93.

Um, so it's been there for 30 plus years, and uh you know it's it's it's a pain to me because I'm out there doing work in front of my house, but it it is what it is, and and that's kind of what you have to deal with.

Um, and sometimes that's just you have to weigh those risks or those those interests, the the interest of the tree, the interest of the landscape code against what you want to do with the property in certain ways.

Um last thing I want to comment on, Jay.

If I'm off on this, please correct me.

A lot of the arguments brought up really were what I would call equitable arguments, trying to do what's just uh in our role.

We have to look at whether the code allows for this or doesn't allow for this, whether it was misinterpreted, it's not really an equitable type of issue to look at.

So we have to find all three elements.

Again, I do think number three was met.

I don't think we've got any testimony that the removal of the tree is consider uh is something that uh he can meet the burden on on items one and two of those three things, and it's always a problem for me.

I agree with you, generally speaking.

I mean, you know, you're talking this isn't meant to sound the way it's gonna come out, but you're not bound here by common sense, you're buying by the city's code.

You know, you know, a lot of a lot of times you guys do those frequently those things are congruent, right?

They're they make sense and sometimes they diverge.

You know, the job of the city council is to make is to make policy.

It's this jobs board in this context to apply that policy here, right?

And so that's in this in the quasi judicial setting of this hearing, you're absolutely correct.

So with those comments, because I did think I wanted to address both sides of the equation and maybe give some instruction or some guidance to the comment.

Does anybody else have any comments or feedback they would like to uh for the board to discuss amongst ourselves?

And I agree with you that I think it's very one-sided with the expert testimony.

I don't think maybe he didn't realize to be prepared to that degree.

It happens more often than it doesn't happen here, where the side that doesn't agree with the city's decision doesn't come with an expert, and it makes it difficult for us, and then we have our answer type.

And that's I just wanted to come back to that because that's kind of where I see this evolution.

And then we're all in the same field, or not all of us, but quite a few of us are in the same field in construction and development, and it's not reasonable to say that 50 years from now that tree is going to affect the utilities.

That tree's gonna affect the utilities a lot quicker than you realize, and the cost associated with not only that property, but all the properties down that road, is it you know who bears the money on it?

Is it the city gonna have to come in and relocate all that and who's paying to get?

I mean, there's a it it's faster than people realize.

I mean, I run into it all the time, where it just destroys stuff, and people don't realize it.

I agree with that point.

I don't think that the expert for the city really explained it in an accurate way and really understands the impact that the placement of a tree like this, which has expanding surface roots versus a hickory tree that has deep roots.

I mean, live oaks are notorious for upending curving utilities, sidewalks, driveways throughout the city, and I think they should probably be revisited because we're experts because we see it every day and we live it, and um I I don't think you explained it or recognize it in your testimony today.

I'm not in the business, but yet I use common sense, and the problem took place when it was built, it should have never been approved, but going back it's it's it's past history.

But our I thought our job, not our job, but the job is to change problems, give solutions instead of trying just to live with and and put up with another problem, another problem, another problem.

I know I'm not meeting the criteria, but kind of common sense says we should do something about it, but yet we cannot, because our hands are tied by code.

If we approve the appeal, though, what does that do?

I mean, we just basically hopefully draw attention to the fact that perhaps the code needs to be re-evaluated at some point when it's not gonna be a 20-year battle.

But if we keep it keep upholding the code, will it ever get changed?

Or maybe in their decisions when you make go out there at these properties and you have all the utilities so close by that you bring in your sewer department and your utility department and look at costs associating what further down the road the impact is to the city itself.

That that's part of your equation.

It's I I like the tree too.

I mean, I live in a neighborhood that we've got tons of them.

We've been cutting them down because they're so old they're dying, and they've caused damage and everything else, but I think we liking the tree, but not seeing the whole impact of what could happen in the cost where that's why the city of Clearwater has a massive budget that does sewer repairs on a constant basis.

And the majority of those are not from age, a lot of them are from trees and roots and root systems and TVing and finding what the damage is down there.

It's it's pretty astronomical if you don't think about it.

I'm not gonna argue that it I know it's it's policy more than it is applying the code, is my concern.

And and you know, I like to try and think that we we have to I think we we're doing our job here from the standpoint of trying to provide some guidance to the applicant.

Um I uh we'll leave it to them.

And a motion well, I just as an engineer that's designed several hundred sites.

That was my responsibility to make sure the trees weren't gonna interrupt services on future, and so you know, to say that it's the city's responsibility.

Well, they check the plans, but it's the design professional that lays the site out, the development, the building, puts the trees where they put them, and they they should be thinking of that.

But you know, to to say the city should catch when we do it wrong.

Well, I think it's I think it's there's so many reviewers too, and people don't understand that when you go into planning and development, you've got 10 reviewers or 20 reviewers, and neither one of them talked to the other one.

Right.

Just stay there.

Well, you you made a quick point.

I I I want to be careful.

I I forget how you phrased it, but along the lines of essentially, hey, here's some ideas for the applicant.

We really can't do that, can we?

I mean, because practically I want to clearly you can.

We've been doing it for an hour, but then what I would suggest to you is that you can't make it part of your decision making process.

You are bound here by the code, and and member Chanel, it's uh suggestion is well taken.

If you have a you know there's an issue with the code, I will never suggest to you, I'm not gonna advise you that you should um you know make a decision that's contrary to the evidence and the code to to send a message to council that need to change the code.

I would suggest instead that you on number eight on today's agenda, board members to be heard, you know, it raise that.

And I suggest that your city development staff may take that suggestion back to the folks who need to hear it and and see how it see how it comes out in the in the legislative process.

Um but yeah, you can make those suggestions, but you you shouldn't and and mustn't unless they are directly relevant uh to the criteria base your decision on them.

Well, and and Jay, I do think that the conversation today is helpful to us kind of weeding through our minds coming back down to where the code what the code requires what our obligations are.

But there's questions lingered, you can't help the human being not think about a way we can do this.

And I and I want to give everybody the opportunity to explore that by the same token.

I'm gonna keep reminding them it it the end of the report is very clear, and you started it.

You started the the describing the procedural process um out very clearly in the beginning that we have to, and that was my big question is it all three, and the answer you answered that in the very beginning.

So I do, and I and and and you're right, and there are functional are our functions are a little different.

I'm here to advise you legally, and I recognize and appreciate candidly that you're looking for practical solutions to a to it to an issue.

Uh but I would be remiss in my job representing the board if I didn't tell you to apply these things mechanically based on the evidence.

That's your that's what you're called to do by the city's code, and it does do violence to the city's code when those strictures are ignored.

Yeah, and for everybody's recollection, Jay's here to guide us, he's here to guide the city.

So his input isn't to take the city's position, his input is to say how we conduct ourselves correctly, so that uh our decisions are beyond being contested.

So that being said, uh if there are any other any other discussion, or do I have a motion on the appeal?

Do we have forms for the appeal?

Yeah, it's in the back.

It's in the back.

Um so there's level two applications, whether we're inconsistent or consistent.

Well, and and here you're you're a little different.

I agree that the level two motions are likely the most analogous to what we're doing here today.

If your motion though is going to be to overturn, you would need to cite that code that we talked about for 504 sub B and explicitly articulate those three factors.

If it's not, then you can simply make a motion to deny based on the testimony and evidence of record.

All right.

That being said, do I have a motion for anyone on the appeal by Mr.

Bruzicki?

If you move to deny his appeal, he's got processes we kind of talked about.

If you move to approve his appeal, you've got to follow Jay's guidance and cite those three elements and uh that that they've been met and therefore the appeal is granted.

But we also I believe have to give some direction to what we want staff to do with the appeal.

Correct.

I move to approve case number four-five oh I apologize.

I move to approve the appeal and the application APP 2025-1201 siding section code 4-504.

Based on the evidence and testimony presented in application, the staff report, and at today's hearings, and hereby adopt the following findings of fact based on said evidence that are hold on said evidence.

Identify factual evidence and testimony relied upon to approve application.

Um I believe that the application under code 4-504.b is not upheld in the three competent and that's found based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party that the following criteria has in fact been met.

And hereby issue the conclusions of law that the application complies with the city community development code sections again 4-5 or 4.b, and request that the staff develop a list of conditions of approval, including that he can move this tree to another area on the property, or replace it with two crate myrtles, and that the staff present a list of conditions for final approval at our meeting next month.

Is that even close?

I'll second it.

Well so I want I just want to make sure that the record is clear that you're moving to grant the appeal.

And in so doing, you are moving that this board make a finding that the decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provision of the code.

Is that right?

And that this board's decision overturning the appeal or modifying the decision by moving the tree.

Correct.

Uh, will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the code.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And also that the decision of the board, uh, if this motion carries uh modifying the decision appealed from will not be detrimental to the public health safety and general welfare.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Is that the motion that you intend to decide?

Second.

Do you have a motion and a second?

So we're motion and a second.

Is there a discussion on the motion?

I do have a comment.

I heard the applicant specifically say he really can't speak to items one and two.

Um so I don't know how that motion could be supported based upon the evidence we have in the record, but I'm throwing that out there in case anybody missed that in the transcript.

Um so uh does anybody else have any comments or discussion on the motion?

I I like the motion.

I think that the applicant can move the tree or will replace similar diameter and place it somewhere in the rear of the property to meet the spirit of the code.

Okay.

Any other comment or discussion on the motion?

I think she said you could move it or replace it with two non-shade trees.

I did say that because that was in his application.

So I will amend that if necessary to what the city had recommended that he replace this oak tree with another shade tree if requested any other discussion on the motion?

I think you can say in another location.

In another location, correct.

I'll second it.

Okay, so the her amendment is uh acceptable to the second, so we don't have to vote on the amendment.

So the motion as amended calls for the relocation of an or replacement with another shade tree if it's not relocated on the property.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

I'm gonna ask you to do a roll call vote on this one.

Okay, the roll call vote.

Okay.

What size?

What size shape tree?

Similar.

Similar.

And so the record is clear.

If you if you were voting in the affirmative, a yes vote on this motion means that you are voting to grant the appeal.

To grant the appeal and modify the decision appealed from so you want to call names off, vote when your name is called off.

Member Adginali.

Aye.

Member Heinrichs.

Nay.

Member Chanel.

Aye.

Member Hopp.

Aye.

Member Bootsicus.

Nay.

Member Park?

Aye.

Member Master Sario.

Aye.

So we have five, two.

So the motion passes.

And that will be reflected in the order that we prepared.

And we'll go from there on things.

Okay.

All right.

Next item on our agenda is the director's report.

Um I would just like to remind everyone that next month's meeting in February is moved to Thursday due to the holiday week work session will be in the chambers on Tuesday.

So that would be February 19th at our regular time.

But Thursday, February 19th.

Thank you for the reminder.

Yeah.

I had a home.

Remember you were up last month and I don't think I entered it in my calendar, so that's that's helpful.

Thank you so much.

Uh anything else?

I do not have anything else to add, thank you.

Thank you.

Board members to be heard.

Then I'll say that I do think that we would have been better off directing the staff to take this up to city council from one board to another than the action that we took, but that's my take on things just because of the hat I wear when I'm not here.

There being nothing else, we are adjourned for today.