My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/22/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
9/22/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:58:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/22/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
S E P 2 21987 - BOOK 69 FAGE 522 <br />that the resolution will serve to alert staff to the tree when <br />the land is developed. <br />Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, noted <br />that there is not much difference between a "specimen tree and an <br />historical tree." The "specimen tree" designation will serve as <br />a reminder to the staff or the owner of the property that the <br />tree is of special significance. The resolution does not really <br />give it any more protection than the County's Tree Protection <br />Ordinance, however. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked why we are designating this <br />particular tree when there are several other significant trees in <br />this area, and Vice Chairman Bowman explained that this tree has <br />been recorded as the largest in the nation. <br />Vice Chairman Bowman opened the Public Hearing, and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Attorney Richard Bogosian, representing Ty Tarby Associates <br />of Winter Park, trustee for the property on which the tree is <br />located, stated that his client feels there is no need for the <br />County to declare any tree on this property as a "specimen tree," <br />particularly since staff has stated that the resolution will not <br />afford this tree any more protection than the Tree Protection <br />Ordinance. He stated that the owners of this property and some <br />200 acres in the area are excited about having this tree on their <br />property and will make every effort to protect this tree when <br />development occurs in that area. The owners are concerned, <br />however, that such a resolution will have an effect on the <br />financing of a development when financial institutions discover <br />that the tree has been recorded as a "specimen tree". Attorney <br />Bogosian emphasized that while the owners feet the tree should be <br />protected, they do not want the title to the land clouded. <br />Director Keating explained that there is nothing in the Tree <br />Protection Ordinance that would prevent the owners from getting a <br />permit to remove the tree if it is in the way of concentrated <br />development. <br />38 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.