My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/07/2004
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2004
>
12/07/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2022 9:45:18 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:04:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/07/2004
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2999
Book and Page
128, 001-070
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
449
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />the house. If a tree needs to be protected, but then removed, the enforcement part of it begins. <br />Staff would also have to differentiate between the protection of trees and planting of canopy trees. <br />He anticipated code enforcement rather than building inspectors would do inspection and the <br />enforcement. <br />There was discussion and apparent agreement to not have a tree advisory committee <br />but to create a position on the PSAC for someone with tree knowledge and interest. It was also <br />agreed to remove the easement language. <br />*County Attorney Collins understood the motion to be: to approve the ordinance <br />exempting single family lots of less than ¼ acre, no easement will be required, a minimum of two <br />trees planted rather than one for every 2500 square feet, and the trees would be a minimum of two <br />inches at planting, and staff will come back with recommendations for membership on the PSAC. <br />Mr. DeBlois suggested that if the Board was to lower the threshold to less than an <br />acre, staff would support ⅓ of an acre versus the ¼ acre. <br />Chairman Neuberger understood 3 units to an acre would be excluded because of the <br />RS-3 category. It would be the small existing lots in the older subdivisions. <br />Commissioner Davis asked for clarification for someone wanting to clear a ½ acre <br />lot for playing football with the children. <br />Mr. DeBlois noted that staff did not want to see the County dictating to homeowners <br />on existing lots about what they could or could not do on their own property. <br />Commissioner Bowden noted that the City of Vero Beach encountered problems <br />with people coming from outside who did not value the trees and took them down. <br />Commissioner Davis wanted common sense, a balance in the way it is done, and he <br />was having a hard time to find the right way to do it. <br />County Administrator Baird cautioned there would be more problems with ¼ acre, <br />and Commissioners Lowther and Wheeler thought it would be easier to ease restrictions later if <br />they find it necessary. <br />There was discussion about whether or not the motion was clear or not. <br /> <br />December 7, 2004 <br />30 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.