This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1555.CIV
DATE: 1/25/2022
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 1555 Private Property Rights to Prune, Trim, and Remove Trees
SPONSOR(S): McClain
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/SB 518
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Civil Justice & Property Rights Subcommittee Petruzzelli Jones
2) Local Administration & Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee
3) Judiciary Committee
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Local governments sometimes require property owners to obtain a permit or pay a fee before trimming or
removing trees. To make the maintenance and removal of dead, dying, overgrown, or diseased trees easier,
the Florida Legislature enacted s. 163.045, F.S., in 2019. The law prohibits a local government from requiring
notice, approval, application, permit, fee, or mitigation for the pruning, trimming, or removal of a tree when a
residential property owner obtains documentation from a certified arborist or a Florida-licensed landscape
architect stating that the tree presents a danger to persons or property. In addition, a local government may not
require a property owner to replant a tree that was pruned, trimmed, or removed in accordance with the law.
HB 1555 amends s. 163.045, F.S., to provide that a local government may not burden a property owner’s
rights to trim or remove trees on his or her own property under s. 163.045, F.S., if the tree “poses an
unacceptable risk” to persons or property. Under the bill, a tree poses an “unacceptable risk” if removal is the
only means of practically mitigating the risk below “moderate,” as defined by the tree risk assessment
procedures in Best Management Practices—Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition (2017).
The bill also adds definitions to s. 163.045, F.S., for the terms “documentation” and “residential property.” The
definition for “documentation” requires that an onsite assessment be made in a certain manner by a specified
type of certified arborist or architect. The bill defines residential property as a single-family detached building
located on a lot that is actively used for single-family residential purposes. The building may either be a
conforming use or a legally recognized nonconforming use in accordance with the local jurisdiction’s land
development regulations.
The bill may have an indeterminate fiscal impact on local governments.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2022.
STORAGE NAME: h1555.CIV PAGE: 2
DATE: 1/25/2022
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Background
Local Governments
In 1968, the Florida Constitution was amended to include local home rule powers for cities and charter
counties.
1
Counties, to the extent not inconsistent with general or special law, have the power to
prepare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county.
2
Private Property Rights Protection
The Florida Legislature has recognized that some laws, regulations, and ordinances may inordinately
burden private property rights, and that protecting the rights of individual private property owners is an
important state interest.
3
The Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act provides property
owners relief when a law, rule, or regulation burdens private property but does not amount to a
constitutional taking.
4
Additionally, Florida’s Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act
allows landowners to seek relief when a governmental entity’s order or action is unreasonable or
unfairly burdens the owner’s use of real property.
5
Local Tree Pruning, Trimming, and Removal Regulation
Local governments sometimes require property owners to obtain a permit or pay a fee before trimming
or removing trees. To make the maintenance and removal of dead, dying, overgrown, or diseased trees
easier, the Florida Legislature enacted s. 163.045, F.S., in 2019. The law limits
6
the ability of local
governments to regulate tree pruning, trimming, or removal, when a residential property owner obtains
documentation from a certified arborist
7
or a Florida-licensed landscape architect that the tree presents
a danger to persons or property.
8
Specifically, the law prohibits a local government from requiring
notice, approval, application, permit, fee, or mitigation in such instance.
9
Additionally, a local
government may not require a property owner to replant a tree that was pruned, trimmed, or removed
in accordance with the section.
10
“Residential” Property
When s. 163.045, F.S., was enacted, no definition of “residential property” was included in law. In 2019,
a Tampa mobile home park owner was fined $420,000 for cutting down trees on his property, despite
the fact that he had the requisite documentation from a certified arborist.
11
The tree-cutting firm’s
arborist who signed off on the tree removal was fined the $420,000 amount as well.
12
The City of
1
See art. VIII, s. 1, Fla. Const.
2
S. 125.01, F.S.
3
S. 70.001, F.S.
4
Id.
5
S. 70.51, F.S.
6
This section does not apply to the exercise of specifically delegated authority for mangrove protection pursuant to ss.
403.9321-403.9333, F.S. S. 163.045(3), F.S.
7
The arborist must be certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. S. 163.045(1), F.S.
8
S. 163.045(1), F.S.
9
Id.
10
S. 163.045(2), F.S.
11
Charlie Frago, Tampa Seeks to Fine Gandy Tree Cutters a Record $840,000, Tampa Bay Times (Sept. 18, 2019),
https://www.tampabay.com/news/tampa/2019/09/18/tampa-seeks-to-fine-gandy-tree-cutters-a-record-840000/ (last visited
Jan. 24, 2022).
12
Id. STORAGE NAME: h1555.CIV PAGE: 3
DATE: 1/25/2022
Tampa claimed that s.163.045, F.S., did not apply to the mobile home park because the property was
zoned commercial, not residential, even though it was divided into residential mobile home lots.
13
Effect of Proposed Changes
HB 1555 amends s. 163.045, F.S., to modify the standard of what level of danger or risk a tree must
present to satisfy the requirements of s. 163.045, F.S. Specifically, the bill requires that the
documentation under s. 163.045, F.S., must exhibit that the tree “poses an unacceptable risk” to
persons or property. The bill provides that a tree presents an “unacceptable risk” if removal is the only
means of practically mitigating the risk below “moderate,” as defined by the tree risk assessment
procedures in Best Management Practices—Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition (2017).
14
The bill also adds definitions of the terms “documentation” and “residential property” for the purposes of
the section. The bill defines “documentation” as “an onsite assessment performed in accordance with
the tree risk assessment procedures outlined in Best Management Practices—Tree Risk Assessment,
Second Edition (2017) by a certified arborist
15
or a Florida-licensed landscape architect, and signed by
the arborist or architect. By adding this definition, the bill provides more detail and clarity as to what
kind of documentation satisfies the section as to disallow local government to require action of a
property owner. Under this definition, the assessment must be performed onsite and it must be signed
by the arborist or architect performing the assessment.
The bill adds a definition of “residential property,” which it defines as “a single-family, detached building
located on a lot that is actively used for single-family residential purposes and that is either a
conforming use or a legally recognized nonconforming use
16
in accordance with the local jurisdiction’s
applicable land development regulations.” The bill also changes a requirement that the property owner
must “obtain” the appropriate documentation from an arborist to a requirement that the property owner
must “possess” the documentation.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2022.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Amends s. 163.045, F.S., relating to tree pruning, trimming, or removal on residential
property.
Section 2: Provides an effective date of July 1, 2022.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
13
Id.
14
The International Society of Arboriculture developed a series of Best Practices for the purpose of interpreting tree care
standards and providing guidelines of practice for arborists, tree workers, and the people who employ their services. ISA,
in Best Management Practices—Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition (2017), available at https://wwv.isa-
arbor.com/store/product/324, (last visited Jan. 24, 2022).
15
The arborist must be certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
16
A nonconforming use or structure is one in which the structure was legally permitted prior to a change in law, and the
change in law no longer permits the re-establishment of such structure or use. Mark A. Rothenberg, The Status of
Nonconforming Use Law in Florida, Florida Bar Journal (March 2005), https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-
journal/the-status-of-nonconforming-use-law-in-
florida/#:~:text=definition%2C%20a%20nonconforming%20use%20or%20structure%20is%20one,So.%202d%20751%2C
%20754%20%28Fla.%205th%20DCA%201985%29%3A (last visited Jan. 24, 2022). STORAGE NAME: h1555.CIV PAGE: 4
DATE: 1/25/2022
None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
The bill may have an insignificant negative fiscal impact on local governments due to reduced fines
caused by the bill’s modification of the ability of certain property owners to cut down or trim their
trees without the need for local government approval.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
None.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
The county/municipality mandates provision of Art. VIII, s. 18 of the Florida Constitution may apply
because the bill may limit the ability of a county or municipality to impose fines or fees upon a property
owner who wishes to cut or trim trees on his or her property. However, an exemption may apply
because the bill may have only an insignificant fiscal impact.
2. Other:
None.
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
Not applicable.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES