Tree Removal Appeal

---

After the Village approved The Launch at Little River, a neighboring homeowner filed suit challenging whether the project and its Development Agreement complied with El Portal’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. 

While that lawsuit remained pending—and before the court could determine whether the approvals complied with the laws protecting the riverfront—Miami-Dade DERM issued Tree Removal Permit No. TREE-2500284, authorizing the removal of five specimen trees: two Ficus aurea, one Ficus citrifolia, and two Terminalia buceras.

When tree-removal work began, the same homeowner and plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the DERM permit to prevent the loss from becoming irreversible. An emergency stay temporarily halted further cutting while the appeal was under review. A later request for correction states that one tree was cut after the developer and its contractor had been informed that the stay was in effect and while DERM personnel were traveling to the site.

The appeal challenged whether the permit process meaningfully applied El Portal’s more protective requirements for native vegetation and the Little River bank. Section 24-19, “Environmentally Sensitive Areas,” requires natural native vegetation in setbacks and non-building areas to be retained “to the maximum extent feasible.” It also conditions approval of development along the Little River on the preservation or planting of natural vegetation.

DERM administers tree permitting in El Portal under County standards, which it has described as minimum requirements that municipalities may make more stringent. Yet when the Village approved the development, no tree-removal permit had been issued. The only written DERM review included in the approval record recommended disapproval because the specimen trees had not been shown as preserved and had not yet been evaluated through a tree-removal application.

The appeal contended that this left a critical gap: the Village approved the development before DERM determined whether the protected trees could be removed, while DERM later issued the County permit without squarely resolving whether removal complied with El Portal’s stricter riverfront protections.

The permit relied substantially on an assessment prepared by an arborist retained by the developer. A local landscape architect identified potential engineering alternatives—including helical pilings and subgrade support—that could allow shoreline work while preserving the trees.

After cutting began, an independent certified arborist provided a pro bono assessment of the two remaining Ficus aurea. Although approximately 25 percent of each canopy had been removed, he concluded that both trees remained viable for preservation and recommended corrective pruning and soil treatment to improve their health and vitality.

DERM’s pre-hearing memorandum nevertheless characterized the trees as “effectively destroyed” and stated that “the requested relief is moot because the trees have already been removed.” A formal request for review and correction challenged those findings as materially inaccurate because two specimen Ficus aurea remained standing and had been found viable for preservation by the independent arborist.

The request also argued that the record contained no evidence of structural failure or imminent danger, no comprehensive independent written assessment, and no meaningful consideration of preservation alternatives. It further noted that the developer’s own report described positive conditions in one tree, including moderate foliation and branch spacing capable of supporting healthy lateral growth.

The plaintiff and appellant received DERM’s principal staff memorandum less than 72 hours before the scheduled hearing and requested a continuance to review it, obtain expert rebuttal evidence, and address preexisting travel. The request was denied, and the appeal was denied after the Board determined that he lacked standing. The factual dispute over the trees’ condition, the conflicting professional assessments, and the substantive objections to the permit were therefore not decided on their merits.

The standing determination was disputed because the plaintiff’s property lies along the same Little River bank, separated from the development site by only one parcel and the railroad. The appeal described the canopy and riverbank as an interconnected system supporting bank stability, runoff absorption, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and climate resilience. The plaintiff sought reconsideration and correction of the determination, but it was not revisited, and no further administrative relief was provided.

Before the remaining trees were removed, El Portal’s Mayor formally requested that the developer and contractors pause further cutting until the pending lawsuit could address the legality of the underlying development approvals. The letter cited the risk of irreversible harm and the importance of preserving potentially irreplaceable natural resources while judicial review remained pending.

Following the standing determination, the remaining specimen trees were cut. Although the trees are now gone, the record remains important: it documents the gap between Village and County review, materially disputed agency findings, conflicting professional assessments, and how removal proceeded without a decision on whether it complied with El Portal’s environmental protections.