Winter Park tree-cutting ordinance gets friendlier

An arboreal tit-for-tat erupted on the dais at the Winter Park City Commission Monday that put potentially millions of dollars, and the city’s famed tree-lined streets, in the balance.

In the end the Commission approved the first reading of an ordinance that makes city actions against residents who cut down healthy trees to be less punitive and more encouraging of replanting. But it didn’t happen without a fight.

“I've never heard of a tree actually filing suit and going to court, so I would say that I think it’s a little bit over the top for us to think trees have personal rights, because it’s very clear they don’t,” Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel said in response to an existing city ordinance that fined homeowners for cutting down trees. “Now we the people who actually take care of those trees have a lot of personal rights.”

The bulk of the discussion was how the Commission would modify that ordinance to encourage residents to replace their trees to help grow a sustainable canopy, rather than merely fining them for every tree they cut down.

But Commissioner Carolyn Cooper said that an amendment to the ordinance, which eventually passed, would give homeowners too much leeway to allow them to cut down very large trees above 19 inches in diameter without an extra penalty, and let them replace them with 3-inch diameter trees.

“What if you’re really not happy with a city full of 3 inch trees?” Cooper asked, adding that she feared that more residents would cut down their trees if penalties were reduced. “The threat to trees is not just the hurricane.”

All but one vote regarding the ordinance came down to a 3-2 split between Mayor Ken Bradley, Vice Mayor Steven Leary and Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel versus commissioners Carolyn Cooper and Tom McMacken, a common rift in contentious issues on the dais.

The only vote that they agreed on was an amendment that would remove camphor trees from a list of protected trees, allowing residents to cut them down without penalty. That came after residents complained that the camphor trees are destructive to their environment and shouldn’t be considered the same as other large trees, regardless of age.

Resident Roberta Willenkin moved to the area with her husband four months ago, but said she quickly was fined by the city for cutting down one of her camphor trees.

“I have been told now that I have to replace the camphor tree,” she said. “I just don’t want to spend all that money. To have to be told what kind of tree to plant, I just think that’s unfair. I think I should be rewarded and other homeowners should be rewarded for removing an invasive tree.”

An amendment by Cooper that would have removed the requirement that residents maintain city trees in front of their property was voted down.

“Commissioner, I don’t think you know how much that would cost the city,” Bradley told Cooper.

Leary said he agreed with the point that the city should take care of its tree-lined streets, but voted against the amendment because he didn’t know the costs.

McMacken agreed with Cooper that the city should maintain trees on its property.

“One thing I hear more from residents than anything else is I’ve got a tree in my front yard, it’s on city property and it’s falling apart; what are you gonna do about it?” McMacken said. “Right now both ordinances say ‘Homeowner, do something about it, because it’s really not the city’s concern,’ and I think that’s wrong.

“I look at trees almost like infrastructure, just like sidewalks and fire hydrants and roads or anything else. They’re a part of what makes our community, and part of the reason why people move here and not out west somewhere where they’re taking down fields and they’d love to have the tree canopy that we have.”