3/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 3. Comment: Public comment suggested that the Ordinance make reference to the List of Florida's Invasive Species, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Category I Plants for a determination as to whether or not a tree would be considered to be either Protected or Specimen. Change: A reference to the most current List of Florida's Invasive Species, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Category I Plants document has been added (Section 901.03). Reasoning: This document contains the most comprehensive list of non-native invasive plants in Florida and therefore should be used as a reference guide. Comment: The public expressed a concern that there needs to be a minimum tree size limit for replanting trees as a result of a violation (Section 927.22). Change: Section 927.22 has been changed to reflect a replacement process that will more closely reflect the actual loss due to the illegal removal of trees. This process will require that the square inches of replacement trees be equal to or exceed the square inches of the trees illegally removed. A minimum size for the replacement trees has also been added. 1 he replacement trees must be at least two (2) inch dbh. Reasoning: Using replacement dbh to account for lost dbh does not fully account for the loss. For example, if a 10 inch dbh tree is illegally removed, it must be replaced by two 5 inch dbh trees. A 10 inch dbh tree has an area of 78 square inches, the two 5 inch dbh trees have a combined area of 39 square inches. Replacement of square inch for square inch will provide for better replacement value and over time will actually increase the canopy cover. Comment: There was concern that there would be a perceived conflict of interest for the developer to pay a Certified Arborist to be onsite [Section 927.18(3)(a)]. Change: This section has been altered. The developer will pay the County a fee that will cover the cost of the Certified Arborist. The County will establish and maintain a list of Certified Arborists and will chose from that list. The County will then pay the Certified Arborist from the monies received from the developer. Reasoning: This is a perceived conflict; however, staff is of the opinion that some of this perception could be changed by having the County pick the Certified Arborist and pay for his/her service. 6. Comment: A suggestion was made that, under Section 927.18(1)(d)(6), the types of acceptable sampling methods for a tree survey be listed. Change: Examples of acceptable sampling methods are now included as well as some language from the existing Ordinance regarding the option of not perfoiuiing a tree survey in areas where all Protected 'Trees are to be save or removed. Reasoning: 1 he inclusion of sampling methods will provide the developer/owner with guidance. Depicting clumps/groups of Protected Trees (either to be totally saved or totally removed) on development plans will provide sufficient information to Planning staff to make decisions as to whether or not changes and/or modifications to the plan need to be made in order to save trees. Section B Comments Received but not Included in Current Proposed Ordinance. 1. Comment: There was extensive public comment regarding defining Specimen Tree by a species specific dbh This would mean that each species of tree common to this area would have a different dbh defining Specimen Tree status (as examples: a 15 inch dbh MARCH 12, 2002 -83- Dut)s l,1/4If