2/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are not preserved and Mr. Shulke responded "Yes, ma'am.". Community Development Director Robert M. Keating stated proposed changes to the tree protection ordinance were on the agenda later in the meeting and one of the proposed recommendations is to increase the financial penalties for removing protected trees. Vice Chairman Stanbridge pointed out the proposal included bonds or escrow accounts, but that is not the best solution. Commissioner Adams suggested that a staff member be assigned but have the developer pay for them to be on site during the clearing process, and Chairman Ginn and Vice Chairman Stanbridge thought that was an excellent idea. Commissioner Macht suggested the staff person could be treated like a resident engineer for that limited purpose. Chairman Ginn heard CONSENSUS and wanted that suggestion to be added to the proposed changes in the tree ordinance. Mr. Shulke continued and discussed projects in general in the county which typically are replacing citrus groves which generally do not have any valuable natural resources because the land has been stripped of its natural resources some time ago. In this instance, however, some valuable developable land is lost in the PD design. The developer, therefore, is being put at a disadvantage with his competitors. He then reviewed the intent under the PD concept vs RS -3. He addressed condition 2.b. in staff's recommendation concerning the buffer on 58th Avenue and wanted an explanation of the reason for their request of a "D" buffer. Chairman Ginn advised Mr. Shulke that he would not get the lesser buffer and advised that he move on, but Commissioner Adams wanted to hear what he had to say. Mr. Shulke presented reasoning in the hopes that the Board would allow a "D" type buffer on 4' berm on the west side of the subject site. If it proves inadequate, the developer February 13, 2001 65 BK 1 17 PG 077