06/06/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

said that it was his fault and that as the landclearer he should have known. Apparently it was an oversight as he had been doing a lot of work recently in citrus groves where you don't run into any kind of permitting or tree protection. He urged the Board to mitigate the fine considering this was unintentional and Mr. Cosgrove has offered to replant the trees. Commissioner Bowman stressed that it took many years for those pines to get that big, and she didn't feel that was mitigation. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that before the tree protection ordinance was revised to allow for an after -the -fact permit, staff would have cited the 7-10 trees that actually were cleared, and the fine would have been more in the realm of $5,000. However, based on the amendment to the ordinance in 1986, staff looked closely to see if any of the trees could have been removed with an after -the -fact permit, and that is where their estimate was whittled down to 4 trees. Attorney Rene VanDeVoorde, representing Duncan Thomas of D & L Backhoe Services, emphasized that his client did not state that he was responsible for what happened or that he was at fault. Mr. Thomas is basically a small contractor who did this job in the off season, as 95% of his work is done in the agricultural arena where he doesn't pull permits. The permits are pulled by the general contractor or the owner of the property. What we have here is a situation where it sort of fell through the cracks. Mr. Thomas assumed that the owner pulled the permit, and the owner assumed that the landclearer had pulled the permit. Mr. Thomas was paid $600 for this job, and has never had any problem with the County in the past. Attorney VanDeVoorde stressed that he was not arguing that ignorance is an excuse, but was convinced that Mr. Thomas was not aware of the landclearing restrictions, and that is why they are asking for a nominal fine only. He advised that they have agreed to split the fine. JUN 6 '1989 39 rd BOO' 0