HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEPB 06-02-09 Fact SheetHISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FACT SHEET
ADDRESS 2110 Brickell Avenue
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Appeal of a decision of the Code Enforcement Office concerning the
denial of an application for a tree removal permit.
ANALYSIS An appeal of a tree removal permit at this address was reviewed by the
Board in April of 2007. This address is not located within an
Environmental Preservation District or on a Scenic Transportation
Corridor; therefore, the HEP Board was not required to review the project
prior to the filing of any appeals. The property was a vacant lot filled with
trees on which the developer is building eight townhouses. The plans
included the removal of several trees, partial mitigation, and payment into
the City's Tree Trust Fund.
The original submittal from 2007 included a report from a certified
arborist and a letter from a builder that discouraged the relocation of
trees because lifting the trees with a crane could make them fall apart,
the overhead power lines are very close thereby creating a safety hazard,
and the trees would not survive relocation.
At the April 3, 2007 hearing, the owner's architect was asked by the
Board if the drawings were accurate because it appeared that the trees
were larger than drawn and would interfere with the building's footprint.
The architect emphatically stated that the drawings were indeed
accurate. Based on the recommendations from staff, the arborist, and
the architect, the Board voted to approve the retention of trees number 1,
4, and 5 and requested additional mitigation if they did not survive
construction.
Over a week after that initial HEPB meeting, the architect for the project
sent the former Preservation Officer a letter asking to submit a revised
application to the HEPB. The revision was to ask for approval to remove
tree number 1 because, after further review by the architectural firm, it
was discovered that the tree was three feet away from the proposed front
wall of the building. Because the HEPB had made a decision, the
applicant could not return for at least one year. The revision could not be
heard by the HEPB until recently.
The present attorney for the project applied for a tree removal permit but
was denied by Code Enforcement because of the HEPB resolution
stating that the tree must remain unless it did not survive construction. It
is understood that the tree will not survive construction because it falls
within the building footprint, a fact that was not made clear to the Board in
2007.
Item #7
June 2, 2009
The tree is a substantial mahogany tree, has withstood damage from
significant hurricanes, and has added to the extensive greenery on
Brickell Avenue. Many trees can be successfully relocated with good
relocation and pruning techniques along with enough time. In 2007, staff
consulted with a landscape architect employed by the City who concurred
with the original findings of the arborist that the tree will not survive
relocation.
Rather than attempt to continue construction, the attorney wishes to
legally obtain a tree removal permit. Any further work around the tree will
create a potential public hazard with falling branches and close proximity
to the power lines. It is the property owner's wish to avoid any further
conflict and delays by removing the tree and paying into the Tree Trust
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION The Preservation Officer recommends that the appeal be granted, and
that the decision of the Code Enforcement inspector be denied because
the proposed tree removal does comply with the criteria for tree removal
set forth in Article 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Item #7
June 2, 2009