My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/21/2003 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2003
>
10/21/2003 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2016 12:02:15 AM
Creation date
6/13/2016 11:11:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/21/2003
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
trees to be moved."Tree trust"might be more appropriate terminology. Moving trees is now <br /> down to a science and the County must lead the way. She commented we would still not <br /> be saving oaks if we were to incorporate another county's requirements. We can have the <br /> best of all worlds;conserving these trees will be a win-win for everyone. She wanted to see <br /> this idea incorporated into the tree ordinance. She urged her colleagues to give us the <br /> opportunity to move them, not take them down. <br /> Vice Chairman Ginn wanted to save the trees but was concerned about a Bert Harris <br /> conflict. <br /> County Attorney Collins explained that the Bert Harris Act says any development <br /> regulations passed after May 1995 which have the effect of inordinately burdening private <br /> property,with expenses that in all fairness ought to be borne by the public at large,give rise <br /> to a cause of action for damages. It also requires a complaint to be filed, a bona fide valid <br /> appraisal supporting the claim of loss of value and it allows a time period of 180 days to <br /> make settlement offers that can include variances from the regulations imposed. So, it may <br /> be that passing such a law would invite Bert Harris complaints, but the mechanism might <br /> be there on a case-by-case basis to address settlement. It could complicate things but it may <br /> not break the bank depending on how judicious you are on your settlements. <br /> Commissioner Neuberger had read a tree can be removed if it is a "nuisance"; how <br /> do we define "nuisance"? He also inquired why we have after-the-fact permits. <br /> Mr. DeBlois responded that it could be considered a nuisance if it was a safety or <br /> health hazard. As to after-the-fact tree removal permits, Mr. DeBlois explained that there <br /> is an opportunity for staff to assess it to determine if it would have come under the removal <br /> criteria. The hard-line approach would be to fine the property owner no matter why he <br /> removed the tree. He explained the development process and stated that the Palms of Vero <br /> was a judgment issue. He explained tree removal in other areas,such as conservation,would <br /> October 21, 2003 <br /> 22 <br /> GIS 12 ( FG 0 6 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.