2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sent Mr. Berlin a letter stating that he would be required to install the ten trees by February 21, 1986 in order to comply with the Consent Order. Subsequently, Mr. Berlin contacted staff and explained that he could not locate the proper number of Oak trees six inches DBH and desired to take this matter to the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This case was the first tree protection violation to appear before the County as an enforcement action since the adoption of the tree protection ordinance. At that time, staff attemp- ted to utilize mitigation as a method of solving this type of violation. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff has abandoned such administrative procedures in favor of formal presentation of the issues to the Commission for its deliberation. Section 23 1/2-6(a) & (b) of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida prohibits landclearing and the removal of protected trees unless the required permits -are first issued by the County. The ordinance further specifies that a violation of this provision shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or both. Based upon the number of trees that have been illegally removed, the property owner faces a maximum monetary fine of $12,000 dollars. In effectuating a settlement, the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to consider any voluntary payment or restoration offer from the owner as restitution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners con- sider obtaining a voluntary payment of up to $12,000 dollars and appropriate restoration of the area from the property owner. In the event that any such agreement is not forth- coming, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in County court. Chairman Scurlock asked the County Attorney why this matter is here as he felt the Code Enforcement Board action should stand on its own. Attorney Vitunac explained that the Commission cannot affect a Stipulation of the Code Enforcement Board other than by direct- ing staff to go make a proposal before that Board. Apparently Mr. Berlin has agreed to the Order, but he wants to get out of it; staff will not let him out; so, he wants to go over staff's heads to the County Commission. Chairman Scurlock asked if staff is saying that anyone who wants to appeal what staff and the Code Enforcement Board recom- mends has the right to come to the Commission. 55 Bou 6J F" -C 544