My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/18/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/18/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:22:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/18/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
DEC 18 1995 Boas 63 FAGS 90, <br />TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 9, 1985 FILE: <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PROTECTION OF TREES ON <br />SUBJECT: SINGLE—FAMILY LOTS <br />Robert M. Xbia1ing,e%ACP <br />Planning & Development Director <br />FROM;Nrthur Challacombe REFERENCES: Tree Prot. <br />Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting on December 18, 1985. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />Several weeks ago, the Board of County Commissioners raised the <br />issue of extending the tree protection ordinance to include <br />single family lots one acre or less in size. Currently, these <br />size lots are exempt from the ordinance requirements. The only <br />tree species protected on these lots are mangroves. <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: <br />Staff, in conducting its review of this issue, analyzed the <br />degree of potential impact on single family units and reviewed <br />the effectiveness of the County tree protection program as it <br />now exists. <br />The original intent of the tree protection ordinance was to <br />control the number of mature trees being removed on large <br />tracts of land. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, <br />developers would often completely clear these tracts prior to <br />site plan approval and, in some instances, clear without any <br />intent of obtaining site plan approval. <br />When the tree protection ordinance was initially being deve- <br />loped, the staff conducted numerous workshops with community <br />organizations in attendance -r One of the topics of discussion <br />at the workshops and subsequent public hearings was the issue <br />of extending the tree protection requirements to single family <br />lots. The outcome of these discussions was that the County <br />staff, in its present capacity, could not adequately issue <br />permits and enforce the ordinance with regard to the numerous <br />single family lots within the County. The discussions also <br />indicated that the vast majority of single family homeowners <br />would protect as many trees as possible due to pride of owner- <br />ship and increased property values. <br />Potential Impacts & Benefits of Extending Protection <br />Staff currently spends approximately fifteen hours per week on <br />tree protection compliance and enforcement. This time is used <br />to review site plans and subdivisions, make field inspections, <br />issue permits, and sometimes prepare violation agenda items. <br />If tree protection were extended to single-family lots, staff <br />time devoted to processing applications would be increased by <br />an additional twenty-six hours per week in order to accommodate <br />the number of additional tree protection permit applications <br />(approximately thirteen single-family building permits per <br />week). This increase does not include additional hours likely <br />to be spent on increased code enforcement. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.