Tougher tree regulations draw backlash from developers

Once again, entrepreneur Harvey Vengroff’s plans to build an affordable apartment complex on Fruitville Road have reached an impasse.

Last May, Vengroff threatened to pull the project after the city pushed for annual inspections of the property. The two sides quickly brokered a compromise, and Vengroff has proceeded through the city’s review process.

The plans for Sarasota Station have been pared down during the past year, reduced from 393 to 368 units. Vengroff has invested about $175,000 into the plans and city fees and hoped to begin building this fall on the 7.9-acre site at 2211 Fruitville Road.

Now, though, his team says construction won’t begin until next year — if it begins at all. Joe Barnette, Vengroff’s partner on the project, said city regulations are complicating the development process and jeopardizing the future of the apartment plans.

The group has a wide-ranging list of complaints, from the cost of water and sewer fees to requirements governing the location of the train cars on-site that include Bob’s Diner. Barnette is pushing the city for greater flexibility to secure an affordable housing project near the downtown core.

“Arguably, it’s the most important project in the city right now,” Barnette said. “Who do they think is going to work in all of those condos and hotels being built downtown?”

One of Barnette’s complaints is focused on trees. Currently, he said, there are about 138 trees on the site — most of which are invasive species that were not intentionally planted. After meeting with the city arborist, Vengroff’s team agreed to plant at least 140 trees to mitigate the project’s impact. They also agreed to try to save about a dozen trees on the site.

After that conversation, Barnette found out there was more tree work left to do. The developer had to have a certified survey of the site identifying the location of each tree, with photographs and a narrative detailing why it would or wouldn’t be saved. This, too, proved to be a sticking point for Vengroff’s team.

“Imagine the time and money involved in getting that done — and that’s a minor thing,” Barnette said.

This is the first high-profile test of the city’s new tree protection rules. Last year, staff worked closely with residents to ensure new development didn’t wipe out quality trees after a group pushed the city for stronger regulations.

City Manager Tom Barwin plans to meet with Vengroff’s team next week to discuss the future of the project. But as more developers begin to grapple with a more stringent tree ordinance, will problems with those regulations begin to grow?

Growing pains

For Nathan Wilson, one of the most outspoken advocates for the strengthened tree regulations, this was a landmark week.

He helped two other men install trees Wednesday morning in his neighbors’ yards in Arlington Park. This represented the first time the city mitigated the loss of trees by planting on private property, one of the many tree policy changes.

He’s proud of the progress resident activists have made. Before the new regulations were implemented, Wilson said, developers could clear a lot with large trees over the weekend without arousing suspicion. Now, builders must pull permits before removing almost any tree, and protective barriers must be erected around trees to protect them from the impact of construction.

“We’re asking for a lot of things that we didn’t in the past because we had a lot of problems,” Wilson said. “A lot of people really care about the trees.”

But he said the new regulations aren’t perfect. He regretted that the development community wasn’t more active as the city revised its tree standards, a process that involved several public meetings. Now, he said, problems are revealing themselves — and he wants them fixed, too.

“We’re willing to go back to the table and make the code easier for people to read, easier to interpret and a little more flexible,” Wilson said. “We recognize it’s gotten difficult for people — homeowners and developers.”

On Jan. 13, City Commissioner Liz Alpert got an email from Bird Key resident Stuart Love. In the email, Love expresses frustration that he’s not allowed to remove two palm trees from his front yard. He said the palms are non-native, and he proposed replacing them with three new palm trees, but staff denied his request.

“I believe I’m caught between common sense and the unintended consequences of a new city ordinance,” Love wrote in the email.

Wilson and other tree preservation advocates don’t want to be a source of frustration. He’s run into his own issues: When he was searching for 4-inch diameter trees to plant as mitigation — the standard outlined in the code — he had to buy them from a grower in Clermont, about 20 miles west of Orlando. The next closest seller he found is in Tallahassee.

“From an environmental standpoint, that kind of defeats the whole purpose,” Wilson said. “That wasn’t our goal, and it’s burdensome on the developer.”

“We recognize it’s gotten difficult for people — homeowners and developers.” — Nathan Wilson

A group of residents is meeting with city staff next week to discuss how the regulations can be refined. The goal is to save the trees worth saving while not asking too much of private property owners.

At this point, the future of the Vengroff apartment project is unclear. Regardless of the outcome in that case, Wilson said he hopes to avoid any additional complaints about the standards outlined in the ordinance.

“We will do what we can to find a middle ground for everybody, so everybody appreciates the trees,” he said.