City Staff Presents Their Project Artifacts for Atlantic Marine & Related Property

From: “Burman, Tim” <tburman@port-orange.org>
Date: January 15, 2014 at 6:56:54 PM EST
To: “Mike Gardner (manddgardner@cfl.rr.com)” <manddgardner@cfl.rr.com>, “Dianne Gardner
Cc: “Kisela, Greg” <gkisela@port-orange.org>, “Clark, Wayne” <wclark@port-orange.org>
Subject: Atlantic Marine Responses
Below is follow-up from the public meeting regarding the Atlantic Marine project and related property.
Should you have further questions or if you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (386) 506-5675 or via email (tburman@port-orange.org).
Tim Burman
Principal Planner
Tree Removal Permit – 619 Lemon Street Permit# 13-3505 (Margaret Momberger)
After the Labor Day Code Enforcement matter, and prior to submitting for a tree removal permit, Jack Wiles contacted staff and requested a meeting on site to discuss trees he proposed to remove. On Monday, September 23rd I met Mr. Wiles on the site. Mr. Wiles identified the trees proposed for removal. I tabulated the minimum number of trees required for the property based on the City-wide minimum of 1 tree per 2,500 square feet which is a city-wide requirement and not based on zoning. I explained to Mr. Wiles that if he maintained the minimum number of trees there would be no replacements required. Based on the square footage of the site a minimum of 26 trees are required. I counted an excess of 50 trees on the property. Only 20 trees (8 palms, 9 small diameter oaks and 3 small diameter unknown species) were permitted for removal and none of the permitted trees were specimen or historic trees. During the site visit Mr. Wiles indicated his desire to remove trees from the interior of the property as well as along the rear of the property abutting the Ruth Street residents. I advised him to save the trees along the rear as they provided a buffer between the residential properties and his property. He did not indicate any trees to be removed along the side of the property abutting the Powers Avenue residents. While on site I noticed a historic Live Oak along the north property boundary. I advised Mr. Wiles that he should preserve the historic tree and that if he desired to remove it he would have to receive approval from City Council and that I would not support removal of the healthy historic tree. Mr. Wiles confirmed that he did not intend to remove the historic Live Oak.
The following day, September 24th a tree removal permit application for 619 Lemon Street was submitted to the City for processing. 619 Lemon Street is an older property and does not have an approved site plan. I had already visited the site and had determined the minimum number of trees required and had discussed all of the trees planned for removal diminishing the need for a detailed sketch or survey. A sketch was submitted with the permit application. The sketch included the property boundary with dimensions labeled, a tabulation of required trees and an accounting of the trees that were to be preserved. The permit went through the usual process of being logged into the Naviline system by a permit technician and routed to review staff. This takes several days based on the quantity of all building permits received. All tree removal permits go to a planner for review. The planner processes the permits that don’t require site visits and I receive tree permit applications that require site visit confirmation. The permit was forwarded to me accordingly. I reviewed what was submitted for consistency with the site visit and added the note to preserve the trees within a 50 foot wide area along the rear of the property. I called Mr. Wiles to discuss this issue since this was not shown on the submitted application. Mr. Wiles agreed to avoid the trees in the rear 50 foot wide area. I entered my approval in Naviline on October 8th and forwarded the application to be printed and called for pick up. The permit was picked up by the applicant on October 11th. The permit is good for 6 months. The applicant chose to remove the trees approximately two months after the permit was issued on December 6th.
Code Enforcement Cases – Work without a permit (Chris Hutchison)
617 Lemon Street (CE-07-01185) – Officer on-site while activity was underway
Code Enforcement Officer Dena Joseph responded to this address on July 3, 2007 to a report of working without a permit, specifically for tree removal. Upon her arrival the owner of the property, Billy Wohlhuter, was cleaning the property of debris, brush and dead trees. Officer Joseph issued a stop work order to stop the cleaning while she could investigate the scene further. Her determination was that a permit was not required for the work being done.
619 Lemon Street (CE-13-1949) – Officer on-site after activity completed
There was a call on the Code Enforcement Hotline dated Sunday September 1, 2013 reporting that Don Clark was clearing trees off of the property without a permit. On Tuesday September 3, 2013, I went with Officer Scott Allman to the property. We did observe a bobcat and some dumpsters on the property but nobody was there. It appeared that someone had been cleaning the property of debris, brush and dead trees. There was old dead trees and dead foliage in the dumpsters. We did not observe any evidence of live trees being cut or removed. There was no evidence of sawdust. We did not see where any trees had been dug up. There was no tree stumps or root balls anywhere. There was no sign of excavation or any fill dirt being brought onto the property. Four pictures were taken and attached to the case file. Officer Allman spoke with the property representative they said that they had been cleaning the property of debris, vines and dead trees. This is consistent with what we observed when we were at the property. It has been determined that there was no need for a permit to remove the dead trees, vines and debris.
Nonconforming Use – Ridgewood Avenue and Lemon Street (Tim Burman)
In 2012, when Mr. Wiles requested information about a Ridgewood Avenue property I told him that Motor Vehicle and Boat Storage Facility was not a permitted use in the Ridgewood Development (RD) zoning district and there was no Business Tax or other indication that the site had an active non-conforming status that would allow for that use at that site. Mr. Wiles did not continue to pursue the use at this location as a nonconforming use or a new use.
For the Lemon Street site, Motor Vehicle and Boat Storage is permitted with the Warehouse/Industrial Future Land Use and the Commercial Industrial (CI) zoning district. Mr. Wiles indicated in a conversation with me that he believed the historic use of part of the property met the motor vehicle and boat storage definition as “land where the long term parking of motor vehicles and boats is accommodated” and Mr. Wohlhuter (former property owner) had historically stored motor vehicles and boats belonging to friends and family on this property. City staff has not yet made a formal determination on the nonconforming status of this use through either a Zoning Verification letter or issuance of a Business Tax.