4/16/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mark Tombs with Amdeco Developers, believed the confusion on the contractor's part is that there was an initial plan to develop two buildings, but because of cost overruns, it was revised to a single building development and they had discussions on trying to save cost in site clearing, stockpiling soil, etc. Mr. Tombs stated that it was not their intention to tell the contractor to clear the whole four acres of trees because they did not want to violate any local ordinance. He felt strongly that the whole thing is just a misunderstanding between himself and his contractor and stated that they are here now with hat in hand to see what kind of solution can be worked out. He assured the Board that they understand the severity of the problem. Commissioner Lyons asked if there was any question in Mr. Tombs' mind about the site and what it covered, and Mr. Tombs stated there was not. Chairman Scurlock noted that the solution is not as simple as just substituting landscaping for the sand pines that were removed as we wanted to preserve that specific type of tree. Planner Challacombe confirmed that sand pine is basically a wildlife habitat, and it is desired to preserve it because there are only certain things that will survive in such a harsh regime and there are specific species that are indigenous to it. Commissioner Bird asked if we gave them permission to remove everything other than,8 sand pines, and Planner Challacombe explained that was only in the net buildable area. Chairman Scurlock noted that the 105 trees removed in viola- tion were removed from the entire site, and it is anticipated that another building will be erected on part of this same site at some time in the future. He wished to know when and if that other building is put on site, how many trees it would reduce the violation by as he felt that would give the net effect. Planner Challacombe believed at build -out of their master plan no more than 27 trees would have been left. 45 Boob 64 F,:cc 181-