By STEPHEN HAMMILL

Seven trees lining Dale Mabry Highway have already been removed, but five more might go on the chopping block if Grand Plaza’s management team has its way.

At issue is whether the trees pose a hazard to customers using the parking lot.

The plaza’s management team originally requested a permit from Hillsborough County to remove 12 live oaks lining the front of the complex at 14499 N. Dale Mabry Highway. Grand Plaza, a large shopping, office and restaurant site, is owned by LPI Limited.

Permission from the county to remove seven of the trees was granted on Oct. 26. The county returned a denial letter to LPI Limited for the five remaining oaks, saying those trees are not irreparably damaged, unhealthy or causing significant property damage.
LPI and Grand Plaza have since re-applied to have those trees removed.

Commercial properties can claim trees need to be removed due to anatomical or structural defects, utility obstruction or landscape disturbance.
Tree removal permits are authorized by the Hillsborough County Land Development Code, Natural Resources team, and issued through the Planning and Growth Management Department.

“When sizable trees are being removed, we have to go out and validate it and replace them,” said John Schrecengost, manager of the natural resources unit of the Planning and Growth Development Department.

Since the property management team asked for permission to remove large oak trees, the trees will be replaced with smaller growing trees. County codes say commercial properties have an obligation to restore what they remove, which the county measures in trunk diameter.
In this case, the plaza was ordered to plant 24 inches (in total added trunk diameter) of replacement trees for the seven removed. The condition of the permit requires Grand Plaza to replace the trees on the frontage where the oaks once stood.

Schrecengost estimates the Grand Plaza live oaks are as old as the property, which is a little more than 20 years. The life span of oaks typically ranges from 200 to 600 years, with a few species reaching 1,000 years. The life span is shorter in urban areas, though the trees can still live a century or longer if properly maintained.

In order to augment Grand Plaza’s claims, the property management team had certified arborist A. Scott Kurleman assess the trees. Kurleman oversaw the inspection of the property and submitted his findings to the county.

His report found some cracking in the pavement and damage to curbs around the 12 trees’ perimeters. It claimed no major structural damage to any other property. It recommended the pruning of the canopies of some of the trees and the removal of some of the others.

Some of the subject trees were growing on small interior islands adjacent to parking spaces. The report claims the roots of the trees were causing extensive curb damage, and had become tripping hazards for shoppers, which could cause liability. The report also said the small size of the islands means inadequate containment for the trees’ root systems.

Kurleman found that although the oaks were healthy systemically, they did not warrant preservation due to “poor structure.”
Bill Mazas, Grand Plaza’s property manager, applied for the permits to remove the oak trees. He said the plaza only requested to remove oaks that were causing a problem to the property.

“Originally they placed these trees in the wrong places,” Mazas said. “Now we’re having to deal with these.”
The problem with the trees is root outgrowth, Mazas said. He also mentioned that some roots are growing under the building.

“The roots are causing enough problems that in two or three years there will be serious structural problems over there.”
Mazas said the trees were more an insurance liability than anything else.

“It’s not like these are safe,” he said. “People can easily stumble over these roots. It’s sad to see trees like that have to go.
“It’s been a battle with Hillsborough County,” he said. “The people there have been doing their jobs.”

Schrecengost agreed with Mazas in concluding the live oak was an inappropriate tree to plant under utility lines.

However, the permit and arborist’s report do not stress the trees’ proximity to utility lines as a primary factor for removal.

Schrecengost said the county did not find evidence of the trees’ root systems threatening any buildings on the property, adding that even if roots were growing under the footprint of the buildings, there wouldn’t be much danger to the property.

Nearly all of the trees in Grand Plaza are adjacent to parking spaces, and not to any physical structures. In Kurleman’s report, under the heading of “structural damage,” are hand-written comments about roots disturbing curbs or pavement, but no mention of actual damage to buildings.

Schrecengost emphasized the county’s stance on the removal of trees that are a threat to parking spaces more than property.

“If we have some trees that are desirable, we may suggest that they physically remove the parking stalls,” he said.

With Grand Plaza’s re-submittal to remove the remaining oaks along Dale Mabry still pending, Schrecengost stressed that the new request re-emphasizes the same issues given before.

“It was the staff’s opinion that those claims for the remaining trees weren’t adequate,” Schrecengost said.

In all probability, he said, the county would not support the removal of the remaining trees in the front of the plaza.
“We gave it close attention the first time around,” he said.

The oaks, like the ones already removed, Schrecengost said, are relatively healthy considering their proximity to the paved parking lot.
Grand Plaza’s property management team also has recently submitted a separate application to remove a number of trees from the back of the property.
Schrecengost estimates it will take about three weeks to respond to the newest request.

A resident, who wished to remain anonymous, noticed the trees being cut down from Grand Plaza and contacted the Carrollwood News, citing concerns that the property was removing the oak trees in order to create storefront visibility along Dale Mabry Highway.

Schrecengost said the county has not received any official complaints from residents about the Grand Plaza tree removal.
Mazas said Grand Plaza has a six-month window to replace the trees with new ones. They have two months to identify what trees will be going in, and recently hired a landscape architect for assistance.

“We don’t want to take away anything more than necessary,” Mazas said.

Grand Plaza has plans to “plant the trees into areas where they won’t cause a problem,” Mazas said. “We’re hiring a specialist to see where the best place is for growth.”

Altough replacement trees haven’t been decided upon, Mazas said the property management isn’t intereted in using tropical varities.

“It’s a higher-end property and the landscaping will be geared around that,” he said.

Mazas specifically mentioned an ambitious landscaping plan in the works for the plaza’s southwest corner, where Grillsmith restaurant filled the spot once occupied by Hops Restaurant, Bar & Brewery.

“The county wants to see shaded trees, hedges. These oaks are beautiful trees and under any other circumstance they’d stay,” Mazas said.
He added there are liability concerns for the county, as well.

“If they deny you and there’s an incident, Hillsborough County can be involved in a lawsuit,” he said.

Mazas said that if the county was willing to come every year to grind the trees down, then the plaza would be happy to keep them. He said, however, that the cost otherwise, combined with liability issues, left them little choice but to apply for the tree removal.