- March 28, 2024
Loading
Winter Park has found a potential way to rejuvenate its tree canopy faster and keep it healthier – but it might come at the expense of the tree canopy on the west side of the city.
City Commissioners agreed on new policy changes to the Winter Park Urban Forestry Management Plan during their meeting on Monday, including a requirement that planting strips for canopy trees be a minimum of 6 feet wide and that the city discontinue replanting medium size trees until all the larger canopy trees have been replanted.
City Arborist Dru Dennison reasoned that the minimum 6 feet of space gives large trees more room to grow and stay healthy, and City Commissioners agreed that canopy trees are part of the city’s unique character and should come first.
Winter Park has been removing dying trees and replacing them though the Urban Forestry Management Plan since early 2014 in an effort to revitalize the canopy.
But residents spoke out about the cons of the new policy changes – mainly that the dying canopy trees along the west side of the city would not be replaced due to the narrow size of the planting strips throughout the area. Many canopy trees on the west side grow in spaces as narrow as 3 to 4 feet, well below the set requirement agreed upon on Monday.
The trees would instead be replaced with an understory tree of much smaller size.
“I’m not an arborist, but I do live on the west side,” former Winter Park mayor Joe Terranova said.
“Who designed the streets and the sidewalks and right of ways? The city did, and now you’re telling the people over there on the west side that they can’t have any shade trees…. To deny these people trees is really bad. You need to think about this for a while.”
But even though a canopy tree could be replaced with a smaller tree, residents would still have to play the waiting game. Under the second policy from Monday, that space would remain vacant until all canopy trees in the city have been planted.
“I lived [on the west side] when the streets were dirt – they had the same big oak trees,” resident Mary Daniels said.
“All those trees have been taken down, that’s one of the things I have noticed. Nothing has been replaced, and now we’re being told that if it’s not 6 feet wide than oak trees can’t be replaced. That’s ludicrous.”
City Commissioners also discussed whether residents should have the right to choose the species of replacement trees along city roads near their homes. The city has made oak trees a top priority, but City Manager Randy Knight said that some residents have requested that spaces remain vacant after a tree has been taken down.
Commissioners agreed that residents who don’t want trees will be passed over for now while the city focuses on planting oak trees where they’re desired.
“We can deal with this down the road,” Mayor Steve Leary said.
“The official strategy is to punt.”
Dennison added that she was concerned about the city’s emphasis on planting just oak trees around the city due to possible diseases. A 2013 study from the University of Florida notes that a disease known as “oak wilt” can locally spread through oak tree root systems and cause rapid wilting. The study finds that oak wilt has been spread across 24 states outside of Florida in the U.S. due to the sap-feeding nitidulid beetle.
“I will go on the record saying that as a professional forester and certified arborist, I don’t believe we should be planting all oak trees,” Dennison said. “We need to diversify our canopy.”
“We haven’t had any disease here, but there is a huge risk.”
Commissioner Tom McMacken, a registered landscape architect, said that’s a risk the city is willing to take and deal with.
“I appreciate your concern, but I thoroughly believe that is a manageable risk,” he said.
“I’m very comfortable recommending to this city that we continue the policy of planting oak trees.”