Laserfiche WebLink
1988 BOOK 70 F,1,E 860 <br />procedure. He commented that it has been noted that the <br />residential land owners are responsible for maintaining the <br />buffer, but he believed the question is whether the buffer was <br />taken down off their property. Mr. McCarthy informed the Board <br />that he did have a chance to inspect the site while this <br />operation was being conducted; he also has an association with <br />the people with Lloyd & Associates who did the original survey; <br />and he can have the leader of the surveying crew testify to the <br />location of some trees that he remembers. One specific oak that <br />was taken down., all but about 6" of the base of the tree was on <br />Ms. Broada's property. In addition, Mr. McCarthy pointed out <br />that every single one of the survey flags were torn down by the <br />bulldozer when this was cleared, and where those stakes lined up <br />in relation to the original survey he did not know. To his <br />knowledge, at least four of the trees removed were on the <br />property owners' property. The buffer that was being maintained <br />by the residents was removed, and this facilitated the planting <br />of the new trees. He stressed that we are talking about 200 year <br />old oak trees that have a canopy spread of 80-90' and would <br />interfere with citrus trees that need more sun. Mr. McCarthy did <br />not know which part is to be decided by a civil trial, but as far <br />as the tree ordinance is concerned, trees were cut down that <br />there were no permits to cut down. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that whether or not a civil action is <br />pursued should not affect the Board's decision regarding those <br />trees. <br />Commissioner Wheeler believed the question that concerns us <br />is whether a fine of $4500 for violation of the tree ordinance is <br />justified. He has looked at the area, and his feeling is that we <br />are dealing with legitimate citrus farmers who acquired a piece <br />of property in good faith assuming it was agriculturally zoned. <br />This property is in a heavily agricultural area, and had it been <br />zoned agricultural, there would have been no permit required and <br />no violation, other than if there was an actual property line <br />42 <br />