9/17/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M Director Keating responded that this is not an additional requirement to restrict building. These requirements are in place because of the Endangered Species Act. He stated that staff has mapped the area and this requirement may affect 10 or 12 parcels in the County. However, the City of Sebastian has many more parcels that are being affected. Commissioner Bird did not want to require property owners to have to deal with federal agencies. Director Keating felt this would protect the individual property owner by causing them to deal with the County before clearing his property possibly in violation of the Act. Nancy Offutt, speaking for the Board of Realtors, was concerned about this proposed amendment to the ordinance because it affects single family lots. She felt this change would put the single family home owner in a contest or match of wits with a federal agency and could affect the time element involved, because these agencies have their own agenda. She was also concerned about the liability of a real estate agent who would be representing these properties. Notice of this requirement could not appear in the deed to the property, and a letter sent to the owner is not sufficient notice to protect a subsequent purchaser, so she saw a potential problem with liability. Commissioner Scurlock saw this amendment as transferring the liability from government to the property owner by putting the property owner on notice. He saw a lot of questions involved in whether a single family lot could preserve habitat. Mr. DeBlois agreed that 1/4 acre is not scrub jay habitat, but when there are many 1/4 -acre lots in one clump which comes to 25 acres, that is when the concern relates to single family lots. Director Keating further explained that an on-site examination is required to determine whether there is habitat. Nancy Offutt thought the problem is evident. She noted that this does not refer to the original clearing of a parcel but rather to what happens later when they want to add on or install a swimming pool; what are the implications of this amendment. Regarding 912.07 on tree protection, she urged that the exemption as it currently exists should not be removed. Mr. DeBlois would not advise that because scrub jays' habitat is largely scrub oaks and removal of one could adversely affect the habitat. If someone wants to remove individual trees on a lot, it probably would not affect the habitat and would-be allowed anyway. This proposed amendment is a jumping-off point for the County to do a county -wide habitat conservation plan where lands could be acquired which allow single family lot owners to do tree removal. 21 ON 87 fWCU644