11/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BACKGROUND Since May 2000, staff has held and participated in numerous public meetings concerning revisions to the County Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners last considered revisions to the ordinance on July 9, 2002, (see Minutes, Attachment 1). At that meeting, the Board voted to: "deny this ordinance and direct staff to work on an amendment to the old ordinance to include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive enforcement, enhance the definition of specimen trees, add a "critical root zone" (a 5 -foot area of restricted development around a tree), and eliminate the tree wells." Following is a chronology of tree protection ordinance review activities that have occurred since July 9, 2002. July 11, 2002: Under Planning Matters during the PZC meeting, Chairman Winne requested, and the PZC members concurred, that the proposed ordinance, drafted to comply with the Board's July 9th motion, be brought back before the PZC for review before being presented to the Board. September 10, 2002: Planning and Zoning Commissioner George W. Gross met with Planning staff to discuss the proposed revisions prior to the September 12th PZC meeting. He had concerns with Section 927.17(6) which details the penalties and restoration actions related to illegal vegetation removal (not illegal tree removal). As written, the violator has the option to either pay a penalty, revegetate the area, or combination of the two. If the violator were to only pay the penalty, then the illegally cleared area would remain unvegetated. To address this potential scenario, staff revised Section 927.17(6) so that, in the event illegal clearing takes place in a conservation easement (or other similar area) or m an area where upland set aside issues would be involved, the violator will be required to pay a penalty and revegetate. September 12, 2002: The proposed revised ordinance was presented to the PZC. At the meeting, the above noted revisions to Section 927.17(6) were presented. On a unanimous vote, the PZC recommended that the BCC adopt the proposed ordinance, including the revisions to Section 927.17(6) discussed at the meeting. September 19, 2002: The proposed revised ordinance, with the addition noted above, was presented to the PSAC. Two motions were made. One died for lack of a second, while the other did not pass on a vote; therefore, no official recommendation was made. The minutes of that meeting are included with this staff report as Attachment 2. Staff has drafted an ordinance to implement the Board's July 9th motion The Board is now to hold a public hearing and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the ordinance. ANALYSIS The Board s motion of July 9, 2002, directed staff to: 1. use the existing ordinance as a base document; 2. include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive enforcement, 3. enhance the definition of specimen trees; 4. add a critical root zone (with a 5 -foot restricted development area); and 5. eliminate the proposed tree well provisions that were included in the July 9th draft. Based on this direction, the following changes to the existing ordinance have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance (Attachment 3). NOVEMBER 12, 2002 62 K i 1' U