Post #92338 by fatuhiva on Fri, May 21, 2004 12:09 PM

FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE:

Tiki-tree fiasco riles up readers

City still maintains code violation

BY JEFF SCHWEERS
FLORIDA TODAY

MELBOURNE -- Don Coffman's tiki heads are the talk of the town.

Some folks are upset that city officials are forcing him to get rid of the three palms bearing the hand-carved heads that stand in front of his Car Cabana used-car lot on New Haven Avenue. In response to a FLORIDA TODAY online question, 85 percent of 404 participants said the tiki heads should stay.

But city code enforcement officials told Coffman he violated the city's tree-protection ordinance, and the heads must go, as reported in Thursday's

newspaper.

Coffman must replace the hand-carved palms with unmolested live trees or face a $5,000 fine for each mutilated palm. City code prohibits doing anything that would cause irreversible harm to a tree.

"You've got to be kidding me," Bryan Henderson, a Brevard County resident, said in an e-mail to the newspaper. "You mean to tell me that our city inspectors have nothing better to do than complain about someone trying to spice up his business?"

Some say it's a sign of governmental regulation run amok. Others say it's a stifling of artistic expression.

And some argue that palms shouldn't be subjected to the city's tree-protection ordinance because, scientifically speaking, they're a type of grass.

"Palms are not trees," said Steve Hittner of FunDay Eco-Tours in Melbourne Beach, after calling the newspaper following Wednesday's article.

Flowering plants are broken into two categories: monocots and dicots, based on the number of cotyledons or "seed leaves" in the embryo. Trees are dicots; palms are monocots, and are more closely related to onions, lillies and orchids.

Satellite Beach resident Susan Price made that same point in her e-mail.

"There is no rhyme or reason that the sabal palm should be the Florida state 'tree'," she wrote. "Basically a palm is a grass. Hah . . . what would Code Enforcement have to say about that?"

As far as Code Enforcement is concerned, a palm by any other name is still a tree.

"The bottom line is, yes," said Dan Porsi, the city's top code enforcer.

Coffman planted the trees to meet city landscaping requirements. One of those requirements is that the palms have to be alive, Porsi said. One is already dead. The other two have a substantial chunk of trunk carved out and will probably die, too.

"We're saying basically they are destroyed," Porsi said.

Coffman said he'll replace the palms, but others think he should challenge the citation.

Tammy Perry of Melbourne said it's a matter of artistic expression and personal freedom. "Tiki trees are all over Brevard County, in businesses and in homes," she wrote, "which I feel brings a great sense of pride and atmosphere to our area."

Porsi said the ordinance is clear. It's meant to protect all trees in the city limits. Last April, it was amended to also protect scrub oaks for the scrub jay habitat.

Some readers said it was ironic that the city is protecting decorative landscaping when the city and county are letting developers clear-cut land.

In Melbourne, property owners must get a tree-removal permit before they can clear land, Porsi said. Residential single-family lots must pay up to $100. Commercial, multi-family and large subdivisions pay up to $1,000.

You don't need a permit to remove invasive non-native species like meleleuca, eucalyptus, Australian pines and Brazilian oaks, the code says.

Residential property owners have to plant four trees when building a house, but can remove them once they take possession of the property. They can even carve tiki heads into their own palms.

"You could -- if you choose to -- remove them and have no trees on your property," Porsi said. "We're not condoning that. But we let people do what they want on residential property."