Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges review of tree-mitigation rules as council adopts Tree Mitigation Trust Fund ordinance
Summary
A Loxahatchee Groves resident called the town—ode—ankrupting landowners while the council adopted an ordinance creating a Tree Mitigation Trust Fund and a Dec. 13 tree giveaway for landowners, 5-0.
Virginia Standish, a resident who identified herself as living on North Road, told the Town Council on Oct. 7 that the town—ode—or tree mitigation is imposing excessive fees and producing perverse incentives. Standish said a landowner who chose not to clear-cut a property faced mitigation bills ranging—by the example she gave—from about $47,000 up to roughly $166,000 and that the mitigation formula forces owners to replace large trees with large numbers of small saplings.
Standish said the fee schedule creates a risk that owners will accept large mitigation charges or sell to buyers who take an agricultural exemption and clear the parcel, and that the town—nforcement and public permit records are inconsistent. "It boils down to almost extortion is the word I have to use," she told the council. She urged the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) committee and staff to revisit mitigation calculations and consider metrics such as a percentage of lot coverage rather than the current diameter-based replacement formula.
At the same meeting the council unanimously approved the second reading and adoption of an ordinance that creates a Tree Mitigation Trust Fund and clarifies eligible uses. The council also approved language specifying that the town ecember tree giveaway (scheduled for Dec. 13) would be limited to landowners of the Town of Loxahatchee Groves. The ordinance passed by recorded vote: passes 5 to 0.
Council members and staff discussed statutory limits and land-use questions raised by residents. During public discussion Council members and staff referenced the interaction between mitigation rules and Florida gricultural exemptions; Town Attorney Jeff Kurtz named the state Right-to-Farm provisions (he referred to subsection 6 in a Right-to-Farm statute during the discussion) as a constraint on local regulation. Community Standards Director Gardner Young and other staff said they would bring clarifying language to the ULDC committee and continue reviewing mitigation metrics and possible administrative changes.
Council members said they expect the ULDC advisory committee to review exceptions and implementation detail. Staff said clarifying edits in the adopted ordinance included limiting some trust-fund landscaping uses to publicly owned property and creating language for canal- and shoreline-related plantings.
The discussion and the ordinance adoption reflect tensions between the town—ode pproach to canopy preservation and residents—oncerns about the cost and unintended outcomes when property changes hands. Council members said they want more review of the ULDC language and more instructional materials for property owners about mitigation options and bona fide agricultural status.
The meeting record shows staff will present follow-up materials to the ULDC-advisory group and that councilmembers expect new draft language and implementation guidance in coming meetings.
