Laserfiche WebLink
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE: <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY <br />TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE <br />or SUBJECT: <br />Robert M. Keati , A <br />Planning & Devel pmeirb Director <br />THROUGH: Art Challacombe <br />FROM:Chief, Environmental P1anrgt�ERENCES: <br />Roland M. DeBlois t-{ F' Tree Prot. <br />Staff Planner RMt> DIS:ROLAND <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 August 6, 1986. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />Subsequent to a directive from the Board of County Commission- <br />ers, staff conducted a workshop on April 17, 1986 to inform <br />developers and land clearers in Indian River County of Tree <br />Protection Ordinance requirements, and to address any questions <br />or concerns regarding the ordinance. <br />The following issues and concerns were brought to Staff's <br />attention as a result of input from the Board of County Commis- <br />sioners and those who attended the workshop: <br />- The Tree Protection Ordinance definition of "land clearing" <br />could be more precisely defined to minimize confusion as to <br />what constitutes land clearing and therefore requires a <br />permit; <br />- New applications and associated fees should not be required <br />for permit renewals, provided renewal occurs prior to <br />expiration of the initial permit, unless site conditions have <br />changed substantially; <br />- Land clearing for the purpose of vehicular access to perform <br />soil tests should,be exempt from permitting; <br />- After -the -fact Tree Protection Ordinance permits should be <br />obtainable for a cost of three (3) times the amount of the <br />normal permit fees, provided the activities were performed in <br />accordance with permit issuance criteria; <br />- The Tree Protection Ordinance should be amended to allow for <br />more flexibility in its requirement of a five (5) foot <br />radius protected area, to encourage efforts to save trees in <br />circumstances where a five (5) foot radius is not achieva- <br />ble; and <br />Wording in Section 20 of the original ordinance (no. 83-41), <br />pertaining to exempted site plan and subdivision projects <br />approved prior to the effective date, is unnecessary and <br />confusing and therefore should be deleted. <br />Staff is proposing to amend the Tree Protection Ordinance to <br />address the referenced concerns. On June 26, 1986, the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the <br />proposed ordinance amendment to the Board of County <br />Commissioners. <br />49 <br />AUG 6 1996 <br />BOOK 65 pn,,L ,1�0 <br />