Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />8. Comment: There was much public concern that the monetary penalties were not large <br />enough to create a deterrent; therefore, we should increase violation penalties. <br />Reasoning: Violation penalty amounts are established by Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. <br />In the proposed Ordinance, the penalty amounts are set to the maximum allowed by <br />Statute. <br />Comment: The County should require mitigation for authorized peunitted tree removal <br />(process similar to wetland mitigation). <br />Reasoning: The Landscape Ordinance requires planting of sufficient number of trees <br />such that in many cases there is little space left for more trees. <br />10. Comment: The County should suspend/revoke the County Contractor <br />License/Competency Card for illegal tree removal. <br />Reasoning: That authority is already present within other County Ordinances. Staff may <br />want to explore this possibility with egregious and/or repeat offenders. <br />SUMMARY <br />In the development of the proposed Ordinance, many reference sources have been reviewed, and <br />many public comments and suggestions have been received. 1 he proposed Ordinance has been <br />reviewed by the County Professional Services Advisory Committee and the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission. It is staff's opinion that this proposed Ordinance is fair and equitable and will <br />result in the intended purpose as stated in Section 927.03. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed revisions to the <br />County Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance (LDR Chapter 927) and Chapter 901, <br />Definitions. <br />ATTACFTb[ENTS <br />1. BCC Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2002 <br />2. Summary of Public Comments from Public Meetings <br />3. Revised Draft Chapters 927 and 901 Ordinance <br />ChiefEnvironmental Planner Roland DeBlois credited Senior Environmental Planner <br />Brian Poole with most of the work on this proposed ordinance and summarized the proposed <br />changes brought about through public comment at the recent public presentations and public <br />workshop attended by staff. He also noted that the ordinance exempts single-family lots <br />under 1 acre. <br />Chairman Stanbridge commented that the penalties not large enough but are the <br />maximum allowed under the statutes. <br />MARCH 12, 2002 <br />pi <br />• <br />ptai 2 t t) f <br />t... i ie' ',_,� . <br />