01/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On February 13, 2001, staff presented the matrix of proposed revisions to the Board, at which time the Board directed staff to initiate procedures to amend county tree protection requirements, with revisions as summarized in the matrix. At the February 13 meeting, the Board directed that the ordinance revisions include a caveat that "in subdivisions and sensitive clearing areas that the County have a staff member on-site, paid for by the developer, to supervise the clearing process." Planning staff developed a revised draft that was a result of the previous meetings and public input and presented this revised draft to the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) on June 28, 2001. At that meeting, the PSAC members voiced concerns over portions of the revised draft. As a result, the PSAC formed a subcommittee to work with staff and report back to the PSAC. Assigned members to the subcommittee were Todd Smith, Robert Brackett, and Randy Mosby. The PSAC subcommittee held five meetings (July 5, August 20, August 23, September 18, and October 12). Attendance ranged from one member of the full PSAC to two members of the subcommittee and three members of the full PSAC. At the last subcommittee meeting, all previously identified issues were discussed and changes were made to the draft ordinance. The PSAC reviewed the revised draft on December 20, 2001 (see Attachment 5), and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed Ordinance, with the following two changes: • When it is determined under the Ordinance that a specimen tree is to be saved on a private residential lot Less than one acre in size, a `Notice' shall be recorded in the public records stating that said tree is to be saved and that the tree shall not be removed unless and until a Tree Removal Permit is obtained. • Define `waterfront project' sites for the purpose of this Ordinance, as relating to natural waterbodies. Staff is in agreement with these recommended changes and has incorporated them into the proposed Ordinance (see Attachment 1). The draft Ordinance was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on January 10, 2002. A number of technical editing errors were noted (e.g., incorrect citation references, sentence structure, numbering system) as well as a few minor changes, additions, and/or corrections. On a unanimous vote, the PZC recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the draft Ordinance with the indicated modifications (Attachment 6). A' ALYSIS In this section, issues raised by the various groups to which the draft Ordinance has been presented are denoted with bold lettering and bullets. Staff's response to each issue is noted. In most cases, the issue is included in the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) and is so noted; however, in several cases a particular issue may have been modified based on subsequent review. This is also noted. In at least one case, an issue was raised, put into the draft and was later removed, based on further review of the issue. Sumrnary of issues resulting from BCC meetings The BCC provided direction to staff in three areas (bold items are directions from the BCC; the inforivation following the direction is staffs response): JANUARY 22, 2002 -28-