Laserfiche WebLink
F_ <br />OCT 2 1985 <br />4. BOOK 62 PAcE3.p,0 <br />performance of any tree removal, landclearing or grubbing <br />unless tree removal and landclearing permits have first been <br />issued by the County. The ordinance further specifies that a <br />violation of these provisions shall be punishable upon <br />conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) <br />per tree and land clearing activity or by imprisonment in the <br />County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or both. <br />On August 7, 1985, staff requested that Mr. Wood & Mr. Thornton <br />submit a voluntary payment of a $3,000.00 fine and obtain <br />"after -the -fact" permits. <br />Mr. Wood & Mr. Thornton both stated that they felt the fine was <br />excessive and that they would not voluntarily comply with <br />staff's request. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant <br />staff the authority to pursue available remedies in County <br />court. <br />Planner Challacombe informed the Board that Mr. Thornton is <br />basing his argument on the fact that Oslo Park Subdivision was <br />duly platted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to the <br />effective date of the Subdivision Ordinance, which in Section 20 <br />states: "Any project which has received final site plan or subdi- <br />vision approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance <br />shall be considered exempt from its requirements." <br />Planner Challacombe continued that staff has a different <br />interpretation than Mr. Thornton in relation to the word <br />"project." Staff speaks of development project, site plan or <br />subdivision projects, and the platting of Oslo Park Subdivision <br />is considered a project in itself. After the approval of the <br />platting by the Board of County Commissioners, that particular <br />project is considered complete, and that is the intent of the <br />ordinance; it does not exempt subsequent projects within the <br />subdivision. <br />Commissioner Bird inquired if Attorney Barkett concurred <br />with staff's interpretation, and Attorney Barkett pointed out <br />that if you went by Mr. Thornton's interpretation, someone in a <br />subdivision that was approved twenty years ago could come in and <br />clear cut, which he did not believe was the intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />40 <br />