The county process to
determine that future takes its next step at a joint meeting of the county
commission and planning board on Wednesday, Oct. 3, 6 p.m. at the commission
meeting room on Nassau Place. The meeting is designed to get the views of
the public. We understand that developers, large land owners, the chamber
of commerce are marshalling their people to water down the proposed Land
Development Code for Natural Resource Protection which includes tree
protection and landscape requirements for new development.
Attached to this memo is a
set of modifications to the proposed code developed by a small group of
people who have been working on this issue for the past year. We will be
presenting these recommendations to the county officials on the 3rd.
But each of us will have only three minutes to speak, so we cannot cover
everything. We need dozens of concerned citizens not just to attend the
meeting, but to speak up and express their opinions to support the proposed
code and the changes we are suggesting.
For those wishing to speak
at the Wednesday meeting, the following is a summary of the key issues to be
addressed. You may want to speak to one of these issues, or any other that
is of importance to you.
1.
The purpose and intent of the code should include protection of
mature trees. Too many people have taken a cavalier attitude to the old,
large trees called canopy trees or heritage trees, especially the live oaks,
that make Nassau such a beautiful and special place. Existing individual
home sites should be covered by the code, not just new developments. Just
in the past few months, dozens of large oaks have been cut down by
individual property owners along Barnwell Road and elsewhere. One member of
the planning board has said large oaks should not be protected as they are a
“cash crop.”
2.
The proposed code does not protect large pine trees. If these trees
are not protected, there is no protection for virtually all of the trees
that grace the sides of our major roadways including A1A, US 1, US 301, US
17. Without this protection, these roads can be totally denuded of trees,
continuing the trend we see with the strip malls that are sprouting up all
along A1A. These trees were to be protected in the environmental section of
the A1A Overlay District passed by the county commission four years ago, but
that section was deleted after objections by the business community that
large trees along the major roads would block store signs. We recommend
that the draft code be amended to include: that pine trees greater than
six inches DBH within 25 feet of SR 200, U.S. 1 and U.S. 301 cannot be
removed without approval by the growth management director or his designee.
3. The proposed code
would extend the canopy road protection concept currently existing for
Amelia Island. But a provision of the proposed code undermines the entire
concept: permitting utilities to cut down or destroy these canopy trees –
including those along Buccaneer Trail and the Amelia Parkway that are
already protected by the law – in order to maintain service. Our proposed
modifications to the code includes a provision requiring utilities to
consult with tree experts on the best way to prune these trees, or to lay
underground pipes and conduits, to assure their survivability.
4. Any code is only as
good as its enforcement. The enforcement section of the proposed code is
very weak, with only a $500 fine in many cases and no enforcement in
others. If a large oak tree is worth $1500 to $2000 to the owner, a $500
fine does not prevent the owner from cashing in. We recommend a scale of
fines depending on the size and type of tree from $1,000 to $20,000. This
is based on tree protection codes that exist in other counties. There are
no enforcement provisions for other sections of the draft code including
wetland buffers, canopy roads and landscaping. There must be penalties for
developers and land owners who willfully ignore the provisions of these
sections. The draft code has none. The code says it will be enforced by
the county planning director (aka growth management director). But what
expertise does the planning director – current or future – have to make
these determinations? The county has two people on the payroll who do have
that expertise: the county forester and the Florida Agriculture Extension
Service representative. Their advice and counsel on the implementation and
enforcement of all provisions of this code should be made a requirement.
5. Silviculture – tree
farming – is a major industry here and therefore silviculture land is exempt
from the code’s restrictions. However, the way the draft code is written a
silviculture land owner could clear cut his entire property and then apply
to have all or part of the land rezoned from agriculture to either
residential or commercial. I know of no case where such a rezoning has been
denied by the county. This is a loophole that can make the draft code
meaningless and permit the deforestation of most of the county. This
loophole must be closed. We recommend a procedure that could be a
disincentive to this type of activity – requiring the land owner to pay the
difference in property taxes between agriculture land and residential or
commercial land for the period of time since the land was clear cut. Also,
if silviculture land is acquired by, or transferred to, a developer, it
should be immediately reclassified from agriculture to
residential/commercial for tax purposes. This is especially important for
the large tracts of forested land that Rayonier has designated for
development.
6. When silviculture
land is cleared – when the tree crop is harvested – the code should require
that a buffer of 25 feet be kept between the cleared land and any roadway,
waterway or wetland. In this manner, the tree farmer will be able to
harvest the crop, but the county will retain the natural beauty for which it
is known. While this will reduce the farmer’s income, it is a small price
to pay to prevent the county from becoming a wasteland.
7. Incentives should be
provided for land owners and developers to encourage them to retain as much
of the property’s trees, and especially the large heritage trees, as
possible. For example, we recommend as an incentive, if 90% of the trees
that are 12 inches DBH or larger are retained in a planned unit development
or multi-family housing project then the allowable number of units shall be
increased by up to 5%. Also, special consideration should be given to
developers who spare large heritage trees by giving them credits toward
replacement of trees cut down for the development. Many counties (Alachua
in particular) have such a schedule of credits in their codes. For example,
if a 40-inch DBH tree is protected, the developer could get credit for 40
inches in determining the total number of trees to be replaced.
8. In the perimeter
landscaping section of the draft code the required screen between commercial
and residential development is reduced from the six feet in the existing
ordinance -- ordinance 97-19 Section 9.05 paragraph B 1 (a). The draft
permits a screen of vegetation that will reach a three-foot height after
three years. This is much too low and will permit headlights from
automobiles in the commercial project to shine into homes in adjoining
residential neighborhoods. The six-foot requirement in the existing
ordinance should be maintained.
9. Also under
perimeter landscaping, the draft code
calls for three canopy trees per 100 linear feet. That may be fine for live
oaks, but not for other trees considered canopy trees such as winged elm
which are much smaller. This section should be amended to specify the
number of each type of tree that must be planted in perimeter landscaping.
-
A loophole in the draft code would allow
a landowner to allow a tree to die so it could be removed. The code
should require that if a required tree is dead, severely damaged or
diseased, the tree shall be replaced by the owner with the same
number of caliper inches of replacement trees. E.g. two 2-inch caliper
trees or one 4-inch tree for every 4-inch tree that died.
11.
A silliness is taking place that should be stopped. At a recent
meeting of the commission and planning board, two members objected to
sycamores being protected because they have too many leaves that must be
raked up. As a result, sycamores have been removed from the current version
of the draft code. Sycamores are beautiful trees and should be returned to
the protected list. Even without leaves, their unusual bark make them a tree
worth saving. With this reasoning, many more deciduous trees on the
protected list can be removed.
Pick a subject and speak to it to let the
commission and planning board know where you stand.
Robert M. Weintraub
