Laserfiche WebLink
these regulations cannot be followed. The actual cost per acre to clear land is $500 per acre, but <br />when it is done lot -by -lot the cost goes up to approximately $2500 per lot. Consumers cannot <br />afford the prices that must be charged to cover these costs. She felt the Board will be imposing <br />huge costs on the taxpayers to save a tree. She has been developing property for 30 years and it <br />has not been her experience that these costs can easily be passed on to the consumer. <br />Mr DeBlois stated that the County is not forbidding the pre -clearance of lots, just <br />requiring that a permit be applied for with sufficient justification for clearing in that manner. <br />Debb Robinson felt the County should be looking at single-family developments with <br />appropriate landscaping in the common areas. She protested requiring a tree survey with every <br />development and believed the County would be imposing an extra $100,000 at the beginning of <br />the development process. <br />Mr. DeBlois responded that nothing is being changed regarding the survey requirements, <br />criteria is just being added to require information on what trees are proposed to be removed and <br />the justification for that removal. <br />Chip Landers, 1295 45th Court SW, felt this is an emotional reaction to what happened <br />on Jungle Trail. He believed that local developers save as many trees as possible already and <br />stated that the costs are being shifted to the private homeowner. He expressed his concerns about <br />private property rights and felt that these regulations will not apply equally to everyone. He felt <br />this action goes too far and is "swatting a fly with a shotgun". <br />Rick Hope, 195 20th Avenue, representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association, <br />agreed with Mr and Mrs Robinson and also felt that this is an emotional reaction to the situation <br />with Beazer Homes on Jungle Trail. He felt people should be trusted with their own properties <br />instead of adding unnecessary legislation. He felt the penalties should be retained and the other <br />requirements discarded. <br />Mr. DeBlois stated that these changes essentially increase the penalties for illegal tree <br />removal and simply clarify other conditions which are already on the books. This ordinance is <br />not stricter than the current ordinance except as to the penalties involved. <br />NOVEMBER 12, 2002 66 <br />J 7, .i <br />