2/16/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 16`988 BOOK 70 F'AE S56 Chairman Scurlock agreed there are some problems with that, i.e., how would you deal with it if they are not going to expand by just adding more trees, but sheds, etc. Commissioner Eggert did not have a problem with them expanding with vegetation. Director Keating informed the Board that there is a provi- sion in the ordinance which puts the burden on the residential development to protect itself from active agricultural uses when they butt up against an agricultural use. Chairman Scurlock inquired how close the trees just planted are to the residences. Planner DeBlois stated they are about 25' from the property line and there is a setback of 20'; so, approximately 45'- 50'. Commissioner Bowman asked what is buffering there now since the bays and oaks are gone, and she was informed there is no buffer except unvegetated space. Janice Broada of 9335 Frangipani Drive believed that staff, despite their efforts, is not quite. accurate. They say that the buffer area that was cleared was constituted of a row of Australian pines interspersed with native oaks and bays, and that is not entirely true. She informed the Board that the buffer north of the center was all Australian pines and the center part was pines interspersed with the oaks and bays, but the southern _ part was definitely a native oak hammock with the vegetation that accompanies such a hammock. That hammock was destroyed entirely and many more than 8 trees were taken. Ms. Broada' noted that the people living on the north end of the street were quite happy to have the Australian pines removed, but those on the southern part of the street are very upset because the thick buffer that was there even before there were groves was completely devastated. She stated that the reason staff doesn't know this is that the clearing took place so quickly and what was removed was burned completely. 38