Laserfiche WebLink
MAR 14 1994 <br />nex 56 PACE1.9 <br />for saving the understory under any circumstances, so prohibit- <br />ing removal of the understory during removal of undesirable <br />trees appears to be an unnecessary provision of the ordinance. <br />This disparity can be corrected by inserting the additional <br />wording in the proposed amendment. Under the change of word- <br />ing, an applicant would be allowed to obtain a land clearing* <br />permit prior to site plan or subdivision approval. The clear- <br />ing permit would apply only to understory and undesirable <br />trees. In order to effectively protect trees on a given site, <br />an applicant for a land clearing permit would be required to <br />submit a tree survey to the Environmental Planner prior to <br />issuance of a land clearing permit. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends approval of the amended land clearing section <br />of the tree protection ordinance. <br />Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull summarized the <br />proposed amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked if this problem could have <br />been avoided if there had been a proper definition of <br />understory included in the Tree Protection Ordinance. As <br />she understood it, the problem was that the developers <br />thought they could not cut out the weeds and old citrus <br />trees, which is not actually understory. Attorney Paull <br />understood that their problem was they thought under the <br />present wording of the Ordinance they could not remove the <br />various vines, plants and general type weeds. <br />Commissioner Bowman defined "understory" as native <br />shrubs, not junk, and felt it was the purpose of this <br />Ordinance to protect that understory. Attorney Paull <br />explained that Mr. Gaskill of Vista Properties wanted to <br />remove the weeds so that they would not grow back; actually <br />he wanted to grub, and Commissioner Bowman saw no reason why <br />he could not grub. Attorney Paull agreed and explained that <br />was the reason for the proposed change to the Ordinance. <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that the understory is not <br />P <br />saved when the site is subdivided; only special trees of a <br />specific size are saved, and in the end, 90% of the under - <br />story disappears. While he does not like to see this <br />happening, he did not know how to avoid it. <br />19 <br />