3/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

maple tree might be a Specimen Tree; a 10 inch dbh hickory tree might be a Specimen Tree; a 5 inch dbh Simpson stopper might be a Specimen Tree). Reasoning: First, there would need to be agreement on when each species would become a Specimen Tree. Second, the free survey would need to identify not only the species of tree but the appropriate dbh for that species. This would require that the surveyor be trained in tree species recognition. Third, County staff would have to make site visits to confirm that the tree survey correctly identifies the tree species and note each trees classification (Protected or Specimen). The complexity and administration would be costly versus the benefits derived. It should be noted that all West Indian tropical trees are already protected by the proposed Ordinance. For these reasons staff is of the opinion that this change should not be made. Comment: The developer/owner should provide pictures/video of trees/uplands to be saved. Reasoning: Staff has used this technique in the past and has determined that it is of limited value. The pictures/video must be carefully done in order to capture a clear and recognizable picture of existing vegetation. In addition, careful notes must be made as to where the pictures/video was taken and the direction of sight. 3. Comment: The maximum Performance Guarantee does not have equal increase in amounts for the two categories (i.e., for projects less than one acre the maximum increases five times then two times, for projects greater than one acre the maximum increases two times then 1.5 times) Reasoning: It is staff's opinion that this is not necessary and that these amounts are reasonable and will act as a deterrent. 4. Comment: Understory plants such as saw palmetto should be protected the same as trees. Reasoning: Groundcover, understory, subcanopy, and canopy are protected through the Upland Protection Ordinance, Chapter 932. Saw palmetto, and other understory/ground cover are not considered trees. • - Comment: Protected/Specimen Trees in easements/ROW need to be protected so that the trees are not topped or severely cut back. Reasoning: Easements must be maintained so that they serve the function for which they were established. It is necessary to trim or remove trees from these easements; therefore, protection of the trees becomes problematic and counterproductive. Rights-of-way are designated areas for roads. Moving of existing ROWs is difficult if not impossible; therefore, protection of trees within the ROWs is also counterproductive as the frees may need to be removed or trimmed at any time. Comment: When a Specimen Tree is to be saved on a lot in a residential subdivision, have deed restriction in addition to, or instead of, the required `Notice' in the public records. Reasoning: The County does not enforce deed restrictions. It is the consensus of staff, the County Attorneys Office, and PSAC members that the most efficient means of property owners notification is via the `Notice' in the County records. Such a notice requirement is contained in the proposed Ordinance. 7. Comment: All single-family lots (even those less than one acre in size) should be subject to the Ordinance. Reasoning: On lots smaller than one acre, there are limited opportunities for saving trees, considering the footprint of the house, the fill for the house and other structures, the septic system, utility easements, and storinwater management. There is no evidence that many of those trees are in immediate danger of removal. Anticdotal evidence suggests that owners of lots less than one acre usually attempt to save as many trees as possible. MARCH 12, 2002 -84- t• ei Pr