Laserfiche WebLink
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, <br />SECONDED by Vice Chairman Tippin, to deny this ordinance <br />and direct staff to work on an amendment to the old ordinance <br />to include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive <br />enforcement, enhance the definition of specimen trees, add a <br />"critical root zone" (a 5 -foot area of restricted development <br />around a tree), and eliminate the tree wells. <br />County Attorney Paul Bangel asked if the Board wished to continue this hearing or <br />start over in the process and it was determined to start the process over again. <br />Mr DeBlois asked for clarification on the motion. He understood the Board wanted <br />to make no special protection for specimen trees. Also, the Commissioners did not wish to <br />make any change relative to the critical root zone. <br />Commissioner Ginn thought it needed to be defined but required more flexibility than <br />what the proposed amendment offered. She also pointed to Section 927.18 where a tree <br />removal permit comes before the tree survey. <br />Mr. DeBlois stated that a lot of the underlined and struck phrases look really <br />complicated but actually relate to only a couple of modifications. One is the survey <br />requirements with two different sections in the proposed ordinance for single-family homes <br />over an acre versus site plan development. If you want to eliminate the complicated <br />sections, we can just stay with the current survey requirements. The other area that looks <br />complicated is the tree well definition where staff tried to give guidance but the tree well <br />requirements can be left alone. Those two sections will make this look a lot simpler, yet they <br />will be keeping some of the main concepts which are to better define a protection area, based <br />on the size of the tree. The amendment would be defining and protecting larger trees with <br />July 9, 2002 <br />