Pinellas County residents who remove an average-sized tree from their yard must no longer plant 15 others or pay over $7,000, solving what some commissioners believe is a \u201cproperty rights issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
County commissioners unanimously passed several ordinance amendments related to tree removal, protection and planting Jan. 27. The goal was to mitigate overly burdensome regulations and simplify a complex \u2014 and costly \u2014 process that often resulted in disputes or unpermitted home improvements.<\/p>\n
Pinellas administrators initially proposed requiring residents who remove a tree with a diameter between 14 and 24 inches to plant four others or contribute $1,200 to a related fund. Commissioner Chris Scherer led the charge to remove those regulations.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are lots of reasons for a homeowner to want to take the tree out of their front or backyard,\u201d Scherer said. \u201cPhilosophically, I have a difficulty accepting the premise that I should have to go to the government to receive a permit to remove a tree that\u2019s on my property.\u201d<\/p>\n
He also believes that residents should not have to hire an arborist, \u201cargue with the county\u201d and prove that a tree is dying. Scherer worked with administrators on a compromise for that \u201cproperty rights issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
Removing trees with diameters over 24 inches would still require multiple replants or a contribution to the county\u2019s fund, according to the condition and lot size. However, officials have capped the number of replants at eight and reduced the financial penalty by approximately 75%.<\/p>\n
For example, a homeowner who removed two large trees from a 5,500-square-foot lot previously had to plant 27 others or pay $10,233. Commissioner Kathleen Peters called that an \u201cunreasonable\u201d burden for someone who \u201cwants to put a swing set up.\u201d<\/p>\n
That same homeowner must now complete eight replants or contribute $1,800 to the fund. The county also implemented a $300 flat fee for removing trees with diameters up to 12 inches. Commercial property owners would pay $500.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think our old ordinance impedes on our property rights, and I think it was too overreaching,\u201d Peters said. \u201cI think it was too expensive. So, I like this better to make it more affordable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kevin McAndrew, director of building and development review services, said the changes to an \u201coverly complex\u201d code would provide flexibility. The overarching goal is \u201cright tree, right place.\u201d<\/p>\n
McAndrew noted that a \u201cstrong tree canopy\u201d increases property values by 10% to 20% and provides environmental benefits. He said 85% of permitted removals in Pinellas stem from home improvements.<\/p>\n
However, there is \u201cno practical application\u201d for dozens of shade trees, and the previous payment-in-lieu option was likely \u201cgreater than the cost of the driveway improvement,\u201d McAndrew said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen a homeowner is faced with these kinds of numbers and dollar values, they\u2019re choosing not to even pursue a permit,\u201d he added. \u201cWe do have our 2-acre lots in the north portion of the county \u2026 it would require 44 trees. Under this, with the cap, it would be 15 trees.\u201d<\/p>\n
Administrators reduced the tree rating system from six to three classifications. McAndrew said that would mitigate frequent disputes between residents, arborists and county staff.<\/p>\n
The changes apply to commercial properties but exclude rights of way. Commissioners also wanted to ensure that separately governed short-term rentals did not receive the residential exemption for removing trees with a diameter smaller than 24 inches.<\/p>\n
County Attorney Jewel White then warned that the industry is \u201cfraught with litigation.\u201d Pinellas already faces lawsuits related to its short-term rental ordinances.<\/p>\n
Peters bemoaned corporations that are \u201cbuying up homes\u201d and \u201cpaving over the backyard for pickleball courts and bowling alleys.\u201d White advised the commission to limit the exemptions to homesteaded properties rather than exclude short-term rentals, which would \u201ccertainly make enforcement clearer for staff.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat makes me feel better,\u201d Peters said. \u201cA lot better.\u201d<\/p>\n
Administrators expect a 10% increase in \u201ctree-only\u201d permits due to the changes. They also expect Tree Bank Fund revenue to shrink by approximately 60%, from an estimated $300,000 annually to $120,000.<\/p>\n