This study is Pinellas County Government’s first survey in more than a decade to evaluate how our citizens feel about their County Government. It evaluates their perceptions of important issues facing the county, their funding priorities, their ratings of county service delivery and their preferences for receiving communications from the County.

Findings will be used to improve policies and procedures regarding the delivery of service to county residents. They will also shape our communication initiatives, as well as guide the direction of Pinellas County Government’s funding priorities. This survey will also provide a baseline for future research.

This telephone survey of 800 citizens was conducted by the University of Florida’s Survey Research Center during August and September 2003. A random-digit dialing (RDD) sample was generated to make certain that all available county three-number prefixes and both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were included. The sample’s gender, race and age composition matches county demographics. Mid-county residents, homeowners and those living within city limits are included at higher rates than the general population. The margin of error is plus or minus four percent (+ 4%) at the 95% confidence level.

1. Residents are generally satisfied with the way Pinellas County Government meets

their expectations and provides quality service.

flow.

1. • (46%) rate the quality of drinking water as "excellent/good," and only (24%) rate the flow of traffic on roads as "excellent/good."

C. Use of Specific County Services:

1. The use of specific County services varies widely.

1. • (74%) of residents have visited the St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport.
2. • (50%) have applied for a pet license or called Animal Services.
3. • (24%) have requested a building permit from the County.

2. Residents who used specific services give them all high ratings.

1. • (94%) "excellent/good" ratings for Emergency Medical Services/Sunstar Ambulance
2. • (94%) "excellent/good" ratings for Florida Botanical Gardens/Pinellas County Extension Service
3. • (90%) "excellent/good" ratings for 911 Emergency Communications
4. • (86%) "excellent/good" ratings for St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport
5. • (85%) "excellent/good" ratings for pet licensing/Animal Services
6. • (83%) "excellent/good" ratings for Pinellas County recycling drop-off center
7. • (79%) "excellent/good" ratings for the Sheriff’s Office for protective services, assistance or information
8. • (67%) "excellent/good" ratings for County building permits

3. (29%) of respondents have contacted a Pinellas County Government department for any reason in the past twelve months.

4. Public Access TV-96/21 is watched by 10% of cable viewers.

5. More than half of visitors to the County website are interested in paying county utility bills online (51%), and (59%) would be interested in ordering utility services online.

D. Communication from Pinellas County:

1. The top three preferred methods of communication from Pinellas County

government are direct mail (53%), newspaper ad/supplements (43%) and utility bill

inserts (43%).

2. Our residents are electronically connected; (72%) have internet access.

1. • (33%) are interested in receiving information via the County website.
2. • (23%) would like to receive e-mails from County Government.

3. (87%) of our residents have cable TV access, and almost half of those (44%)

have watched Pinellas 18 in the last three months.

1. • (60%) of viewers watch meetings and workshops, with BCC meetings receiving the

highest rating at (74%), followed by the Pinellas Planning Council at (38%).

1. • (47%) of viewers watch other Pinellas 18 programming, and Inside Pinellas is the number one rated show at (63%).

4. (73%) of respondents want increased communication to residents of

unincorporated areas about possible annexation.

Communications from Pinellas County (Public Awareness):

1. Only (4%) of respondents are aware of the newly created County Connection

Centers.

2. (43%) are aware of WEOC the Pinellas County Emergency Broadcast Station, but

only (22%) are aware of their hurricane evacuation level.

3. In the event of severe weather emergency about half (48%) of our residents plan to

stay at home, (23%) expect to evacuate the county, (16%) plan to go to the home of a

county friend or relative, (8%) plan to evacuate to a public shelter, (2%) do not have a

plan and (1%) plan to go to a host home.

E. Citizen Funding Priorities:

1. The number one rated funding priority is road transportation and traffic congestion

with (89%) "very important/important" ratings.

1. • Public safety services are the second highest priority (81%).
2. • Attracting and retaining high paying jobs (69%) and improving water

treatment methods (69%) are the next highest-ranking priorities.

1. • Drainage and stormwater improvements (65%) and health care for

uninsured, low-income residents (64%) are also high priorities.

1. • Other priorities rated as important by the majority of respondents include

veterans’ services (61%), county parks and recreation facilities (61%),

promoting Pinellas County as a tourist destination (59%), redevelopment

of vacant of run-down commercial and industrial properties (58%), and the

public transportation system (52%).

1. • (43%) consider arts and cultural opportunities important funding priorities,

and (40%) give "very important/important" priority ratings to improving air

service at St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport.

2. Road transportation/ traffic congestion (19%) is most frequently mentioned without

prompting as the single most important issue facing Pinellas County, followed by

education (16%).

1. • The second most important issue facing Pinellas County mentioned

without prompting is also road transportation/ traffic congestion (16%),

once again followed by education (10%).

3. There is strong support for both corporate naming rights for public places (73%) and

commercial agreements (66%) to generate revenues for the County.

Citizen Funding Priorities (Transportation):

1. Improving the timing of traffic signals is the number one transportation option

supported by respondents (76%), followed by building overpasses at major

intersections (70%), widening existing roads (64%), adding bicycle lanes/bike

accommodations (50%), and building a new expressway in mid-county (48%).

2. Introducing an express bus rapid transit system is supported by (48%) of residents,

and (46%) want to improve the bus and trolley system. The concept of a rail or

monorail passenger system is supported by 36%.

Excerpted from:

 
http://privatelands.org

The Florida Legislature approved a bill on April 30, 2004 that makes the Rural Lands Stewardship Program a "specifically encouraged designation" on future land use maps for all counties in Florida.  

The bill also includes several additional provisions to help counties carry out and fund rural lands stewardship planning efforts.  

For a summary of highlights, click here.  For the full text relating to the Rural Lands Stewardship program, click here.

BACKGROUND:  

The Rural Lands Stewardship Program was developed by rural landowners in Florida working together with a subcommittee of the Governor's Growth Management Study Commission in 2000-2001.  Statutory language approving the Rural Lands Stewardship was first approved by the Florida Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush in June 2001.

Proposed amendments to improve the way in which the Rural Lands Stewardship program works were approved April 30 by the Florida Legislature as part of an urban infill and rural lands stewardship bill sponsored by Sen. Steven Geller, chair of the Senate Comprehensive Planning Committee.

For more information, please visit the following

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Amending s. 163.3177, F.S.:

section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:

11 163.3177 Required and optional elements of

27 Department of Community Affairs pursuant to s. 163.3184 and

25 163.3167(11) to ensure that innovative planning and

Links and Resources There are many organizations and agencies, throughout the state and the country, that are fighting sprawl and working to promote healthy, livable communities. We hope the following links to these organizations’ sites will be helpful. Link Sections Land Use and Environmental Policy Planning Organizations Farmland Preservation State of Wisconsin Links University of Wisconsin Environmental Organizations Historic Preservation Web-Sites Other Resources of Interest Land Use and Environmental Policy Natural Heritage Land Trust http://www.nhlt.org/ League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org/ League of Women Voters http://www.lwv.org/ 1000 Friends of Florida http://www.1000fof.org 1000 Friends of Minnesota http://www.1000fom.org/ 1000 Friends of New Mexico http://www.1000friends-nm.org/ 1000 Friends of Oregon http://www.friends.org/ 1000 Friends of Washington http://www.1000friends.org/ Sprawl-Busters http://www.sprawl-busters.com Smart Growth Network  http://www.smartgrowth.org  Trust for Sustainable Development  http://www.tsd.ca/  Planning Organizations Applied Ecological Services http://www.appliedeco.com/ Planning and Design Institute http://www.pdisite.com/ Center for Neighborhood Technology  http://www.cnt.org  Congress for the New Urbanism   http://www.cnu.org  Vandewalle & Associates http://www.vandewalle.com      Farmland Preservation American Farmland Trust http://www.farmland.org/ National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.usda.gov/nass/ Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture http://www.usda.gov/ State of Wisconsin Links Office of Land information Services http://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis/index.asp University of Wisconsin UW-Madison Urban and Regional Planning http://www.wisc.edu/urpl/ UW-Milwaukee School of Architecture and Urban Planning http://www.uwm.edu/SARUP University of Wisconsin-Extension http://www.uwex.edu/lgc/ Environmental Organizations American Farmland Trust http://www.farmland.org/ Audubon Society http://www.audubon.org/ Bicycle Federation http://www.bfw.org/ The Biodiversity Project http://www.biodiversityproject.org/ Midwest Center for Environmental Science and Public Policy http://www.mcespp.org/ Wisconsin Stewardship Network http://www.wsn.org/ Gathering Waters http://www.gatheringwaters.org/ The Nature Conservancy http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wisconsin/ River Alliance http://www.wisconsinrivers.org/ Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/ Wisconsin Environmental Initiative http://www.wi-ei.org   Historic Preservation Web-Sites Advisory Council on Historic Preservation  http://www.achp.gov/  Heritage Preservation Services  http://www2.cr.nps.gov  Madison Trust for Historic Preservation http://www.madisontrust.org  National Trust for Historic Preservation http://www.nationaltrust.org  National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Hotels of America  http://historichotels.nationaltrust.org/  National Register of Historic Places  http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/  National Main Street Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation  http://www.mainst.org  National Center for Preservation Technology and Training  http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/  Preservation Action  http://www.preservationaction.org/  The State Historical Society of Wisconsin  http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/hp/smartgrowth/

Other Resources of Interest National Geographic website: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/earthpulse/sprawl/index_flash.html How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities, And What Citizens Can Do About It. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 120 pages. 202/588-6000. Suburban Nation. Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck.

Larkspur project worries neighbors Joe Wolfcale, IJ reporter Marin Independent Journal (Marin, CA) January 4, 2005 http://media.mnginteractive.com New housing likely to increase traffic San Quentin Village resident Michele Barni saw her family's move from Walnut Creek to Marin more than 20 years ago as a simple quality-of-life issue. She's passionate about issues that affect Marin residents, so she was perplexed when she heard the Larkspur Planning Commission was considering another development at 2000 Larkspur Landing Circle, near already busy Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The project, developed by Campus Properties of San Rafael, calls for the construction of an 80-room hotel, 126 residential units and new Ross Valley Sanitary District headquarters on a nearly 10-acre site across from the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. Two other housing projects, Drake's Way and Drake's Cove, are nearby. Workers already have started grading the site for the Drake's Cove project, which will have 23 market-rate homes in the $1 million range. Drake's Way will include 24 affordable homes.   "People on the city councils and other commissions really need to ask the developers the tough questions," said Barni, who drives on Sir Francis Drake to and from her job at an Oakland law firm. "In the end, it will be their constituents who are going to be angry. You expect the City Council will make wise decisions that affect the residents. Watching what's happening has become frustrating. I don't think people are really considering the effect it will have on the larger community." Robert Upton, one of the principals with Campus Properties, agrees with residents that traffic is already a problem in that region. Upton said Campus Properties has agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in traffic mitigation fees to the city to improve conditions around the Highway 101 interchange and to build better access lanes to the project site and highway. "It's not really surprising that traffic is such a big issue since it's not good there now," Upton said. "Any development will create some traffic, but we think it will be small. We're hoping that some of the work down there will improve local traffic flow." The developers initiated a traffic study. Based on the results, they said there would not be a significant impact on Sir Francis Drake that would be used exclusively by those in the development, hotel and residents, sanitary workers and staff. Marin Audubon Society President Barbara Salzman is concerned about the project and its impact on the surroundings. "This is a massive urban development in a city that has in its plan a policy to maintain its small-town atmosphere," Salzman said. "I think this development is very much out of place." The site of the development is owned by the Ross Valley Sanitary District. The proposal also would include demolition of the existing sanitation facilities and construction of a new headquarters. Campus Properties gave the public and the Larkspur Planning Commission its preliminary look at the project Dec. 14 at the commission's regularly scheduled meeting. Chairwoman Helen Heitkamp concluded she was "overwhelmed" after the lengthy presentation by the developer. Public comment was held over to another special meeting Feb. 10 at 7:30 p.m. to further discuss the proposal and allow for more public feedback. "I was really surprised anyone was there at all," Heitkamp said last week. "Most people don't really relate to what goes there because it doesn't impact them. It's such an isolated area." Some of the key areas of discussion besides traffic are affordable housing and the impact another development might have on an area of Marin County that is quickly running out of available space. The Campus Properties project promises 20 percent of the housing will be deemed affordable. Seeing the grading work under way on the Drake's Cove project brought former Mill Valley mayor and planning commissioner Bob Burton to the Larkspur meeting. Like Barni, he commutes daily to work in the East Bay. "I drive that road every day, and it's already incredibly distressed," Burton said. "I was very surprised when I saw what they were doing." Burton, 74, said he came to the meeting to learn more about the project and express his opinion. As the presentation went on, Burton became even more concerned when he saw the magnitude of what Campus Properties was proposing. "The whole thing was so cornball, I couldn't believe it," Burton said. "I think the architect did a remarkable job making lemonade out of lemons. I think the commission needs to think about what this is going to look like and what impact it will have on the community." The Larkspur planning staff, in its initial study, indicated no need for an Environmental Impact Report, because any damage caused by the project could be mitigated by changes to building heights, zoning and the surrounding environment. Upton said the developers conducted an environmental study of their own, examining traffic, soil conditions, water quality, visual impacts -most things ordinarily provided in an EIR. "We believe the planning director and the city will have ample information to make an informed decision on the project. We think the exceptions are very minor. This has been six years in the works." Campus Properties must also present to the planning commission several other permit considerations, including the removal of heritage trees on site, slope use and grading, a precise development plan, a subdivision map and a design review of the entire project. "That there wasn't an EIR done is absolutely outrageous," Salzman said. The developer is asking the city for several exceptions, mostly zoning considerations, to the general plan, but most are minor, according to Planning Director Nancy Kaufman. Barni said she was disappointed that she didn't receive notification of the project, but Kaufman said the city fulfilled its obligation by sending out notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project and printing legal notices in local newspapers. Barni said she already plans her weekends around peak traffic times on Sir Francis Drake and, for that reason, doesn't leave the house between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on either weekend day. "That's how it is these days, but once you throw these projects, it's only going to make it even worse," she said. Contact Joe Wolfcale via e-mail at jwolfcale@marinij.com Copyright and permissions

Butte panel undergoes a makeover; SHIFT: Six of seven council members have resigned in the last year. By ZAZ HOLLANDER, Anchorage Daily News Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) January 3, 2005 BUTTE - A political takeover has transformed the Butte Community Council as the rough-edged Valley neighborhood wrestles with an unprecedented population boom. In the last year, six of the seven people on the council resigned, several in the wake of increasingly confrontational meetings over limits on off-road trail access. The new board members are largely anti-government and anti-zoning. They say they want the community of 3,000 in the shadow of Pioneer Peak to stay the way it is.   As recently re-elected board member Dick Coutts sees it, two kinds of people share the Butte: One group is made up of "typical" Alaskans with a frontier mentality who hunt, fish, prospect and ride ATVs. The others? "We found out they wanted to zone the Butte, they wanted to start restricting four-wheelers," Coutts said. "We found out about that, we started working our way back in, started going to meetings. They got mad." Community councils are locally elected bodies that serve as liaisons between the borough and residents in a geographical area. Some are more active than others, planners say. Councils in the Meadow Lakes, the Y -- near Talkeetna -- and Trapper Creek are developing comprehensive plans to guide future development. Lazy Mountain is just starting work on that process. Councils in the upper Susitna Valley are particularly eager to have a say in future recreational development around the South Denali area. "They've maybe taken a more active role in making some decisions on how they want their communities to look," said borough planner Eileen Probasco. "They're starting to recognize the potential for things to happen if they don't make the decisions themselves." Starting in April 2003, at least three Butte Community Council members resigned after growing frustrated, they said, with the neighborhood infighting: Brit Lively; her partner, Gregory Nielson; and Ted Cox. Three others resigned for other reasons, unrelated to the infighting: Kent Sandvik, Royce Qualls and Michelle Maynor. The Butte council turnover came as some locals say what the community really needs is a united, progressive council -- maybe even a little zoning -- before a wave of new subdivisions erodes access to trails and fills open space. "We need to be on the same side, because once this community develops and you have one-acre lots, they're not going to want to have four-wheelers running along the road or through their front yard," said Cox, a former board chair who stepped down in January 2004 following what he described as verbal abuse. With newcomers drawn by the area's scenery and proximity to Anchorage, the Butte's population is on track to double by 2020 -- despite the area's long-held reputation for errant gunfire and vandalism. One new neighborhood alone has the potential to gum up roads, clog schools and add hundreds of new residents in the next few years: a 300-lot subdivision off Maud Road, a once rural two-lane road several miles outside of Palmer becoming increasingly crowded with new ranchettes and enclaves. The Mat-Su Borough is also planning the future of 6,000 acres of borough-owned lands within the Butte, earmarking swaths of ground for recreation or sale to private developers. The new council will prove its effectiveness by staying deeply involved in that process, said Tom Bergey, the sole council member who endured the turnover. The idea of rejecting the borough plan outright has surfaced, Bergey said, but he doesn't count it as a serious option. "Everybody realizes that something needs to be done," he said. "It's just everything is occurring so fast a lot of people are moving outside their comfort zones." Life on the council got too uncomfortable for some. The pivotal issue came last year after some former members led a drive to post signs along a bike path paralleling the Old Glenn Highway reinforcing state laws that ban four-wheelers, snowmachines or any other motorized traffic. Outraged residents turned out for boisterous community council meetings to rail against the signs and any restricted ATV access. Other issues were creating turmoil as well. One former member reports being nearly accosted at one meeting over the idea of community assistance by the Chickaloon village patrols. Last November, the Alaska State Troopers turned up after one local furious over an unconventional election was overheard -- wrongly, he says -- threatening to get his gun. That local was Dick Coutts. Coutts said he was misheard, that he told another council member to bring a gun. "Dick feels threatened by this restriction on his lifestyle," said Lucille Frey, a Butte resident since 1955 and previous council member who also returned to it nearly a year ago. "There's a bunch of guys here, they're kinda rough around the edges but they're basically good people. You'd want them on your side in a fight." Frey, a longtime anti-zoning crusader, said the flap on the council wasn't exactly a takeover. "Everybody started bailing out and we had to elect people to replace them," she said. Some of the former council members have migrated over to a new grass-roots group called the Knik River Watershed Group that's just getting off the ground. The group plans to focus on balanced use of public lands north of the Old Glenn Highway, including the Knik River to the glacier, Jim Creek and the wetlands around Mud, Jim and the Swan lakes, said Cecily Fritz, one of about 10 members of the group's steering committee. "The way the population is exploding and use is just going up, our group sees it's just not viable without stepping up the planning and the attention," Fritz said. The Butte Community Council is not officially involved at this point, though some members participated in a recent meeting, she said. "There has been a history with the community council recently that you can't end up having a real productive meeting." Meanwhile, current council members say they are working on various local issues. Frey said she and others have spent months working on feedback to the borough-led planning process. Coutts said he is doing a trails inventory as part of an effort to recommend trails that could be converted to nonmotorized use. Bergey said the community's learning curve is pretty long, but he hopes people are coming around. "I listened to a lady argue and say, 'I don't want any zoning but we can't have any lot sizes smaller than five acres,' " he said. "I'm hearing more and more of those arguments inside the community. ... It's frustrating to go through, but it's also real interesting to watch." Reporter Zaz Hollander can be reached at the Daily News Wasilla office at 1-907-352-6711 or at zhollander@adn.com. Mat-Su Focus

 

PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES WOULD AFFECT EVERYDAY LIFE Todd Jackson todd.jackson@roanoke.com 981-3253 Roanoke Times & World News (Roanoke, VA) January 4, 2005 Two and a half years and more than 1,000 hours of study and deliberation have brought Roanoke's new proposed zoning ordinance to the brink of approval. The final draft is available for public review, and while Roanokers probably won't rush to grab copies for bedtime reading, they should be aware of this: The ordinance, which underwent the first major revision since 1987, includes a number of substantial changes that will affect the city's everyday life. All existing land uses will be grandfathered, but the ordinance includes a new zoning plan and map in which a large percentage of properties will be subject to significant changes in the future.   For instance, many churches in residential areas are zoned in the same classification. That means churches that expand onto adjoining properties rarely have to seek a rezoning. But under the draft ordinance, churches and some businesses in residential areas would be put in a new institutional zoning category. The change would increase the number of rezonings required for expansions of such zoned properties. There are also substantial changes involving landscaping, parking and signage. Other proposed revisions include adding another residential district and creating a large-scale commercial district, a river and creek corridor overlay district, a recreation and open-space district and an airport development district. "We're finally getting away from a one-size-fits-all document," said Brian Townsend, Roanoke's director of planning, building and development. The proposed ordinance now available is a compilation of a public discussion draft - issued in February - along with a slew of changes that have since been suggested. The city's ordinance revision, which was guided by a 20-member citizens steering committee, has included public hearings, focus groups and workshops involving representatives of the real estate, business, development and sign communities as well as neighborhood leaders, airport staff, land-use attorneys, planning and zoning-related boards and commissions, regional jurisdictions and city staff. "Our position is that we've been responsive," Townsend said. "I feel good about it," zoning administrator Nancy Snodgrass said of the draft. "And people need to know that the steering committee didn't always take the staff's recommendations." The zoning ordinance revision has stirred public debate, and it was an issue during May's Roanoke City Council election. Several candidates criticized the ordinance and said it creates more bureaucracy that will hamper business opportunities. But members of the steering committee have defended the process and believe the new ordinance will be a huge improvement. The draft ordinance and map are scheduled for planning commission review and city council approval this spring. To access a copy of the draft, go online at www.roanokeva.gov, or call 853-1730.

Concept for higher density development approved; Richland Twp. officials agree in exchange for open space protection. By Steve Wartenberg Of The Morning Call Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania) December 31, 2004   By a 2 to 1 vote at Thursday's meeting, Richland Township supervisors approved a developer's concept for higher density on 100 acres near the Quakertown Swamp in exchange for 113 acres of open space at a different location. The plan for Reserve at Woodside Creek calls for 74 homes on 43 acres of the 100-acre property and 57 acres of open space. "We could turn them down now, but there's intense development pressure throughout southeastern Pennsylvania," said Supervisor Chairman Rick Orloff. "This way we permanently lock up 113 acres up north and 57 by the swamp; I think the township would be best served to lock it up now."

Voters Strong on Land Conservation, Funding for Farmland Protection and More

 The next blank slate for growth; [STATE Edition] 
DAN DeWITT. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Nov 7, 2004. pg. 1 
Abstract (Article Summary) 
Taty Espinosa, left, talks with niece Jenny Sosa on the front porch of Sosa's house in the Lakes of Windermere subdivision Thursday in Orange County's Windermere. "It's a very close community," Sosa said. The subdivision features a "smart-growth" pattern encouraging walking and easy socializing with neighbors.

Taty Espinosa talks with niece Jenny Sosa on the front porch of Sosa's house in the Lakes of Windermere subdivision Thursday.; Cameron Fisher, 7, pitches to his neighbor Ryan Welsh, 8, in the Lakes of Windermere on Thursday as Privado Ong and his; grandson, Jonathan, 5, watch (ran Hernando Times). ; Land near the Interstate 75 and State Road 50 interchange has long been designated for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial use and is now attracting the attention of builders from; all over the state (ran Hernando Times).; Map shows location of planned development district; Photo: PHOTO, KERI WIGINTON, (2); PHOTO, MAURICE RIVENBARK; MAP
 
Full Text (1939   words) 
Copyright Times Publishing Co. Nov 7, 2004
Chris Seton's neighborhood feels different from most new subdivisions - cozier, some people say.

The garages and driveways are tucked away from sight, behind the houses. That leaves more room for the big front porches that face a "linear park," a swath of grass and pines where neighbors gather in the evenings to talk and stroll.

People tend to walk a lot here, Seton says, partly because the yards are small, which leaves less ground to cover if you want to go to the community pool, the playground or, once they are completed, a planned elementary school and local market. Even his job, at Disney World, is nearby - only a five-minute drive from home.

"I could almost walk to work," said Seton, 40.

His subdivision, Lakes of Windermere, is part of the massive Horizon West project, one of the boldest examples of public-private planning in the state. Developers in the Orange County community must build on a "smart growth" pattern that encourages walking, cycling and easy socialization with neighbors, and that can greatly reduce the cost of roads and other public services.

And maybe, if Hernando County residents and officials are willing, something like it could happen here, on the 4,800 acres of land near Interstate 75 and State Road 50.

This land - long designated for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial use - is now attracting the attention of builders from all over the state.

That means the county has the opportunity to guide development so it is more efficient and can mature into a warm and vital community, said Mikel Renner, the former chairwoman of the county Planning and Zoning Commission.

"I personally think the local government should be doing those sorts of farsighted developments rather than just leaving it up to the developers," Renner said. "The market does not always have the best interest in the community in mind."

Some landowners and developers disagree. But some do not, including Gary Schraut, a Brooksville real estate broker.

"You couldn't ask for a place and a better opportunity to do something great," Schraut said.

'Tampa is coming at us'

If the county wants to draw up ambitious plans for the area, it must hurry.

The current intense interest in this part of the county is not surprising. If anything, it has come later than many landowners and planners expected.

Lee Pedone, a dairy farmer, is one of several property owners who bought their land about 20 years ago, expecting to be able to sell to developers within a few years. He remembers what he told doubters at the time: "This is not rocket science, boys. This land's going to be worth a lot of money - high, dry and by the interstate."

County planners also thought it was an obvious location for growth. The county's first comprehensive plan, passed in 1990, designated the land on either side of I-75, between SR 50 and the Hernando-Pasco county line, as a planned development district, meaning it should accommodate a mix of uses. To serve the expected development, the county built a sewage treatment plant and a water tower on the eastern edge of the district.

Some of the land has been developed, including strip commercial centers along SR 50, the Wal-Mart Distribution Center east of the interstate and Sparton Electronics west of it. But most of the land remains as it was 14 years ago: pasture and pine plantations in the hands of relatively few owners, including URADCO, a subsidiary of the Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative, and the family of Brooksville banker Jim Kimbrough.

The Kimbroughs have already signed a contract for the sale of their 1,400 acres in the development district, Jim Kimbrough said two weeks ago. Pedone is negotiating with potential buyers of his 350-acre farm. And several developers have met with the county Planning Department to discuss future projects, mostly residential ones, said Jerry Greif, the county's chief planner.

"Suddenly, we have had a lot of people coming in and talking about it," Greif said.

Two factors are driving this interest, he said: Most of the large tracts of land on Hernando's west side have already been claimed by developers, and subdivisions have started sprouting up along the I- 75 corridor north of Tampa, including Lake Jovita, URADCO's 900- home golf development in San Antonio.

"Tampa is coming at us with a vengeance," Greif said.

Seeking a better plan

Once it gets here, it should take a shape that benefits the county, said Renner and other smart-growth advocates.

They have long been frustrated that most of Hernando's commercial hubs have already been built to accommodate cars rather than people.

What Renner and others see in the I-75 development district is a blank slate waiting for a better plan. And that is exactly what is required by the county's comprehensive plan.

It calls for a master plan for the development district and establishes several guidelines: Industry should occupy between 25 percent and 40 percent of the district; between 10 percent and 25 percent should be zoned commercial; land should also be set aside for public and recreational use, with residential neighborhoods covering most of the remainder. It also requires, in some areas, "increased landscaping and architectural standards."

Most of the land is still zoned for agriculture, said county planner Jim King; the county should hold off on granting widespread zoning changes for development until a master plan is in place.

"I have been kind of pushing that," King said.

The master plan could do nothing more than create special districts where certain design standards or planning patterns are required.

Or, it could be much more detailed. One option is the "gateway community" concept suggested by Renner and growth management activist Gene Kelly. Their idea is to plan for an inviting commercial and residential center at one of the county's main arrival points.

It could take many forms, Renner said, but it should include a town center that allows a mix of stores, restaurants and apartments. The residential development surrounding this hub would be dense, so plenty of people would be within walking distance. All of the neighborhoods, even single-family homes farther removed from the center, should have sidewalks and/or bike paths.

The paths would not only connect residents with the new commercial and employement hubs, but also tie them in with existing features as disparate as the Withlacoochee State Trail and Sparton and Wal-Mart, which are two of the county's largest employers.

'New suburbanism'

Horizon West is a good place to see how some of these smart- growth concepts might work, especially because it has been shaped jointly by the county and large landowners.

That makes it different from purely private initiatives, such as the nearby Celebration. Horizon West is also different because it is not "new urbanism," or a re-creation of an old-style town, said Chris Testerman, manager of the Orange County Planning Department.

"It is what I call new suburbanism," Testerman said.

Covering 38,000 acres of former citrus groves in western Orange County, Horizon West's master plan calls for one major town center and several surrounding villages, each with a smaller commercial hub. Each village will contain several neighborhoods built around park/school centers that are no farther than a half-mile from any house.

County-imposed design standards require peaked roofs as well as front porches on at least half the homes. Builders must also use a variety of house designs on each block.

The work is still in the early stages, and Horizon West can seem like a maze of partially constructed buildings and piles of fill dirt.

"Somebody from New York coming down here might say, 'Good night! What's going on here,' " said Don Phillips, president of the Horizon West board.

But a few pockets of the project are starting to take shape, including a commercial district anchored by a Publix supermarket. The grocery store has architectural touches including subdued signage and brick-colored panels that match the pavers in the parking lot.

Two rows of palms in front of the store are designed to make the lot resemble the main street in a shopping district. And it may eventually function as one when smaller stores are built across from Publix.

The park in front of Chris Seton's house includes islands of planted pines, which once covered most of the property. Seton said the biggest attraction is the prospect of sending his two young daughters to the neighborhood elementary school. And because it frees him from the time-consuming chore of mowing, he doesn't mind the smaller lawn, he said.

Some residents do, said Galen Pugh, a senior planner with the county, but "what you lose in your front yard and back yard, you gain in community. You're buying community as an amenity. And the street is your yard."

Growth with cooperation

This concept was not forced on landowners, Phillips said. It was suggested by them, in 1993.

Their land had been rendered almost worthless by the freezes of the 1980s and the Orange County comprehensive plan, which designated their property as agricultural.

"We were in desperation," Phillips said.

That is why they were willing to accept such rigorous planning restrictions - and to devote more land and money for public use than developers in other parts of the county.

As it turns out, he said, the land has jumped in value partly because the good planning has attracted buyers and the investment of home-building giants such as Pulte Homes and Levitt & Sons.

The county agreed with the landowners' plan, Testerman said, because it allowed them to guarantee farsighted development in an area suited for growth in many ways. Even a decade ago, it was becoming an island of undeveloped land surrounded not only by subdivisions but by the area's largest employer, Disney.

The general lesson for Hernando County, several residents said, is that good growth is mostly likely to happen with cooperation.

"If you have a bunch of people who are using smart-growth language to stop growth, it isn't going to happen," Schraut said.

Likewise, said Kelly, developers and landowners should be open to the long-term economic and social benefits of better planning.

In fact, one of the biggest payoffs, Phillips said, is the freedom from battling angry residents.

Environmental groups offered some resistance to the initial Horizon West proposal, because it meant expanding the development rights over such a large part of the county.

The opposition has fallen away as the benefits of the project have become clearer, he said.

"And the last time we had a plan approved, we had zero opposition," he said. "There's always opposition to development, but there was zero . . . It was a love fest."

Dan DeWitt can be reached at (352) 754-6116 or dewitt@sptimes.com.

Taty Espinosa, left, talks with niece Jenny Sosa on the front porch of Sosa's house in the Lakes of Windermere subdivision Thursday in Orange County's Windermere. "It's a very close community," Sosa said. The subdivision features a "smart-growth" pattern encouraging walking and easy socializing with neighbors.

[Illustration] 
Caption: Taty Espinosa talks with niece Jenny Sosa on the front porch of Sosa's house in the Lakes of Windermere subdivision Thursday.; Cameron Fisher, 7, pitches to his neighbor Ryan Welsh, 8, in the Lakes of Windermere on Thursday as Privado Ong and his; grandson, Jonathan, 5, watch (ran Hernando Times). ; Land near the Interstate 75 and State Road 50 interchange has long been designated for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial use and is now attracting the attention of builders from; all over the state (ran Hernando Times).; Map shows location of planned development district; Photo: PHOTO, KERI WIGINTON, (2); PHOTO, MAURICE RIVENBARK; MAP 

 
 

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. 
People:   Seton, Chris,  Renner, Mikel,  Schraut, Gary,  Phillips, Don,  Sosa, Jenny 
Dateline:   WINDERMERE 
Text Word Count   1939 
      

Dade City Tree Ordinance:

TREES
ARTICLE II. TREES AND LAND CLEARING

DIVISION 1. GENERALLY

Sec. 102-31. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Bonafide agriculture means a land use from which the owner of the land receives greater than 50 percent of his livelihood such as, but not limited to, citrus grove and timber production.

City manager means the city manager of the City of Dade City, or such person as he shall designate to act in his stead.

Commercial nursery and tree farm mean a licensed plant, tree nursery or farm in relation to those trees planted and growing on the premises of such licensee, which are so planted and growing for the sale or intended sale to the general public in the ordinary course of such licensee's business; including licensed businesses involved in the production of Christmas trees for sale or intended sale to the public.

Diameter breast height (DBH) means the diameter, in inches, of a tree measured at 4 1 / 2 feet above the existing grade.

Drip line means an artificial, perpendicular line that extends downward from the outermost tips of the tree branches to the ground.

Grubbing means the effective removal of understory vegetation and trees less than four inches in diameter at DBH, such as, but not limited to, palmetto from the site.

Historic tree means a tree which has been found by a professional forester, horticulturist, professional plantsman, or the city historic preservation advisory board, to be of notable historic interest to the city because of its age, type, size or historic association, and has been so designated and that designation has been officially made and approved as part of the official comprehensive tree plan.

Land clearing means those operations where trees and vegetation are removed and which occur prior to the construction of buildings, e.g., road right-of-way excavation and paving, lake and drainage system excavation, utility excavation, grubbing, etc.

Large tracts means any platted or unplatted tract of land of one acre or more in area.

No tree verification means a signed, notarized statement by an owner or his agent stating that no trees exist upon the site.

Protective barrier means a physical structure of at least four feet in height limiting access to a protected area, composed of wooden, metal, and/or other substantial materials, which assures compliance with the intent of this article. Reference may be made to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers published by the Division of Forestry, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, for possible protective measures. Options and/or variations of these methods may be permitted upon written request if they satisfy the intent of this article.

Public works director means the public works director of the city, or such person as he shall designate to act in his stead.

Remove and removal mean the actual removal of a tree by digging up or cutting down, or the effective removal through damage.

Small tracts means any undeveloped platted or unplatted tract of land of less than one acre.

Specimen tree means a tree which has been determined by the judgment of a professional forester, horticulturist, or other professional plantsman to be of high value because of its type, size, age or other professional criteria, and has been so designated and that designation has been officially made and promulgated as part of the official record of the city.

Transplant means the digging up by a property owner, or his agent, of a tree from one place on his property and planting of the same tree in another place on the same property.

Tree means any self-supporting woody plant of a species which normally, in the city, grows at maturity to an overall height of a minimum of 15 feet, including all mangroves and cabbage palms.

Tree bank means the use of or storage for future use of trees permitted for removal under the provisions of this article which are donated to the city for its use on public property.

Tree fund means an account or line item in the city's budget in which funds received from payments, gifts and donations will be deposited and used for the purchase of trees, forestry equipment, and related services for the promotion and enhancement of the city's urban forest.

Tree survey means a minimum one-inch equals 200 feet scale aerial or drawing to scale which provides the following information: Location of all trees protected under the provisions of this article, plotted by accurate techniques; common name of all trees and diameter breast height of all trees; and such other information as may be required by the development review committee.

(Code 1956, § 20-21; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-21), 1-10-1995)

Cross references: Definitions generally, § 1-2.

Sec. 102-32. Intent.

Trees, as defined, regulated, and protected in this article, are declared to provide and/or maintain beneficial public resources, and it is the intent of the city commission to protect them in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of present and future citizens. In addition, it is further intended to perpetrate through provisions provided in this article adequate tree numbers and canopy to maintain the economic and social status of the city. To that end, it shall be unlawful to cut down, damage, poison, or in any other manner, destroy or cause to be destroyed any trees as covered by the terms of this article except in accordance with all of the provisions of this article.

(Code 1956, § 20-22; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-22), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-33. Duties and responsibilities of director of public works.

It shall be the responsibility of the director of public works to study, investigate, counsel, develop and update annually, and administer a plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal, or disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, along streets, and in all other public areas. The state or county forester or his designee shall be consulted for technical information and recommendations for the planting, removal, and maintenance of trees. Such plan shall be submitted each year as part of the city's annual operating budget.

(Code 1956, § 20-23; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-23), 1-10-1995)

Tree
Sec. 102-34. Tree bank.

The public works director shall establish a tree bank comprised of trees and for funds donated or provided to the city for its use on public property. The public works director shall encourage tree donations of those trees permitted for removal and the adoption of trees on public property by interested citizens.

(Code 1956, § 20-24; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-24), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-35. Arbor Day.

The city commission hereby establishes an Arbor Day for the third Friday in January in which a formal proclamation is presented by the mayor, and a commemorative tree is planted in observance of Arbor Day each year.

(Code 1956, § 20-25; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-25), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-36. Erosion prevention.

Where land clearing or grubbing removes vegetation that would result in erosion due to soil types and/or steep grades, best management practices (BMPs) shall be employed as set forth in technical manuals recommended by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for land clearing.

(Code 1956, § 20-44; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-44), 1-10-1995)

Cross references: Environment, ch. 42.

Tree
Sec. 102-37. Tree protection during construction.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the construction of any structure or other improvements to place solvents, material, construction machinery, or temporary soil deposits within six feet or two-thirds of the drip line of any tree having a four-inch or greater trunk diameter being measured at DBH above grade, whichever is greater.

(b) Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, a permit will be required and the developer shall be required to erect suitable protective barriers. These protective structures, where required, shall remain until such time as they are authorized to be removed by the city building inspectors or issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Also during construction, no attachments or wires shall be attached to any of the trees so protected. Wooden, metal or other substantial material shall be utilized in the construction of barriers. Barriers will be required for all trees being protected, except in the following cases:

(1) Road right-of-way, utility easements, etc. These areas may be ribboned by placing stakes a minimum of 50 feet apart and tying ribbon, plastic tape, rope, etc., from stake to stake along the outside perimeters of such areas to be cleared.

(2) Large property areas separate from the construction clearing area into which no equipment will venture may also be ribboned off as provided in subsection (b)(1) of this section.

(Code 1956, § 20-45; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-45), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-38. Wires, similar devices, over city property; disconnecting; order; notice.

No person shall, without the written consent of the city manager, attach any electric, guy or other wire, insulator or other device to any shade or ornamental tree in any park, street or other highway of the city. Every person owning electric current in or along the public highways of the city shall so place and securely fasten such wire or wires that they will not come into contact with the trunk or any limb of any tree. Every person owning, using or maintaining any such wire or wires shall disconnect the electric current therefrom when given 24 hours' advanced notice by the city manager to do so. Such written notice shall be signed by the city manager, upon his order, and shall be served upon the owner of such wires or upon his agent.

(Code 1956, § 20-34; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-34), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-39. Spraying by city only; use of salt.

No person, except an employee of the city, shall spray any tree or shrub in any highway or park of the city with any chemical or insecticide; and no person shall pour salt water or scatter salt upon any public highway or in any public park in such a manner as to injure any tree planted and growing therein.

(Code 1956, § 20-35; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-35), 1-10-1995)

treestree
Sec. 102-40. Injury to trees or tree guards.

No person shall:

(1) Place any rope, wire, sign, poster, or tie an animal to any tree growing or planted on any highway or public park of the city, or to any guard protecting such tree;

(2) Injure or remove any guard or other device provided for the protection of such tree; or

(3) Commit any other act or thing injurious to any such tree.

(Code 1956, § 20-36; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-36), 1-10-1995)

tree
Sec. 102-41. Dead or diseased tree removal on private property.

The city shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or diseased trees on private property within the city when such trees constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor insects or disease which constitute a potential threat to other trees within the city. The city arbor board will notify in writing the owners of such trees. Removal shall be done by such owners at their own expense within 60 days after the date of service of notice. In the event of failure of owners to comply with such provisions, the city shall issue a citation for noncompliance and have owners appear before the city code enforcement board.

(Code 1956, § 20-47; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-47), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-42. Emergencies.

In case of emergencies, such as hurricane, windstorm, flood, freeze or other disasters, the requirement of this article may be waived by the city manager upon a finding that such waiver is necessary so the public or private work to restore order in the city will not be impeded.

(Code 1956, § 20-48; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-48), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-43. Exemptions.

(a) The provisions of this article shall not apply to any land recognized by the city upon which bona fide agriculture uses and practices are being conducted.

(b) Specifically exempt from the terms and provisions of this article are the following species of trees: Brazilian pepper, Florida holly (Schinus terebinthifolius), Punk tree, Canjeput (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Camal eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Ear tree (Enterlobium cyclocarpum), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), Silk oak (Grevillea robusta), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) and Camphor (Cinnamomum camphora).

(Code 1956, § 20-49; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-49), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-44. Appeal.

Any person adversely affected by a decision in the enforcement or interpretation of any of the terms or provisions of this article may appeal such decision to the city board of adjustment. Such appeal shall be taken by filing written notice thereof with the city clerk within ten days after the decision of the public works director and/or the building official. Each such appeal shall be accompanied by a payment in sufficient amount to cover the cost of publishing and mailing notices of hearings.

(Code 1956, § 20-50; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-50), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-45. Penalties.

Any person, agent or representative thereof who shall violate the provisions of this article, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 1-7. In any prosecution under this article for the removal of a tree without a permit, each tree so removed will constitute a separate offense.

(Code 1956, § 20-51; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-51), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-46. Civil remedies.

(a) In addition, any person who violates any provision of this article shall forfeit and pay to the city a civil penalty equal to the total value of those trees illegally removed or damaged as computed from the International Society of Arboriculture shade tree value formula. Such sum shall accrue to the city and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the city. The sum so collected shall be placed in a fund for the tree bank and shall be expended for the purchase of trees for placement on public properties within the city. Replacement of illegally removed trees may be required as restoration in lieu of money. This replacement will be computed on an inch-for-inch ration based on the total diameter measured at DBH in inches of the illegally removed trees. A combination of money and tree replacement may be required.

(b) In the event of any violation of the provisions of this article, or the imminent threat thereof, the city commission, in addition to any other remedies provided by law, may institute a suit for injunction to prevent or terminate such violation.

(Code 1956, § 20-52; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-52), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-47. Withholding of certificate of occupancy.

The building official shall withhold the issuance of the required certificate of occupancy, or permits and inspections, on any development as required until the provision of this article, including the conditions of any permits issued under this article, have been fully met.

(Code 1956, § 20-53; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-53), 1-10-1995)

Secs. 102-48--102-70. Reserved.

TREES
DIVISION 2. STREET TREES*

__________

*Cross references: Streets, sidewalks and other public places, ch. 82.

__________

Sec. 102-71. Permitted species.

The following list constitutes the official street tree species for the city. No species, other than those included in this list, may be planted as street trees unless specifically listed in the official comprehensive tree plan.

TABLE INSET:

(Code 1956, § 20-29; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-29), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-72. Spacing.

The spacing of street trees will be in accordance with the following, measuring from trunk to trunk: small trees, 30 feet; medium trees, 40 feet; and large trees, 50 feet; except in special plantings designed or approved by a landscape architect and/or specified in the official tree plan as recommended by the arbor board and approved by the city commission.

(Code 1956, § 20-30; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-30), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-73. Space for water and air required.

No person shall place or maintain, or cause to be placed or maintained, upon the surface of a highway in the city any stone, cement or other substance that will impede the free passage of water and air to the roots of any tree in such highway, without leaving an open space of ground around the trunk of such tree as prescribed in this section.

(Code 1956, § 20-28; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-28), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-74. Distance from curb and sidewalk.

The distance trees may be planted from curbs, or curblines and sidewalks, will be accordance with the three species size classes listed in section 102-71, and no trees may be planted closer to any curb or sidewalk other than the following: small trees, two feet; medium trees, three feet; and large trees, four feet. Measurements will be from the trunk of tree to the edge of curb or sidewalk.

(Code 1956, § 20-31; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-31), 1-10-1995)

Cross references: Streets, sidewalks and other public places, ch. 82.

Sec. 102-75. Distance from street corners and fire hydrants.

No street tree shall be planted closer than within 20 feet of any street corner, measured from the point of the nearest intersecting curbs or curblines. No street tree shall be planted closer than ten feet of any fire hydrant. All trees plantings shall meet the minimum requirements for the visibility sight triangles.

(Code 1956, § 20-32; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-32), 1-10-1995)

Cross references: Fire prevention and protection, ch. 46; streets, sidewalks and other public places, ch. 82.

Sec. 102-76. Utilities.

No street trees, other than those species listed as small trees in section 102-71, may be planted under or within ten lateral feet of any overhead utility wire, or over or within five lateral feet of any underground water line, sewer line, transmission line or other utility.

(Code 1956, § 20-33; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-33), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-77. Interference with pruning.

No person shall hinder, delay or interfere with the city manager or the city employees in the pruning, planting, spraying or removing of any tree on any public highway, or in the removal of stone, cement or other substance about the trunk thereof when the same is placed or maintained contrary to the provisions of this article.

(Code 1956, § 20-37; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-37), 1-10-1995)

Secs. 102-78--102-100. Reserved.

DIVISION 3. PERMITS

Sec. 102-101. Permit to plant required.

No shade or ornamental tree or shrubbery, or any plant shall be planted in, or beside the public highways or parks of the city until the same shall have been first approved and the place where it is to be planted shall be approved, and a written permit granted by the public works director.

(Code 1956, § 20-26; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-26), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-102. Exceptions for betterment plans.

Applicants for permits shall be entitled to demonstrate by means of a proper landscape plan that an improvement or betterment of the environment can be accomplished over the existing site conditions, if such landscape plan is carried out to its fullest. If such a detailed landscape plan is so offered and is accepted by the building official, the applicant shall guarantee, by adequate bond, the faithful adherence and completion of such landscape plan.

(Code 1956, § 20-46; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-46), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-103. Permit to cut required.

No person shall cut, remove, injure or cause to be cut, removed, or injured any shade or ornamental tree or located within street rights-of-way, parks and public places of the city, or cut or injure or cause to be cut or injured any root or limb thereof, contrary to the approved comprehensive tree plan, except as otherwise provided in this division.

(Code 1956, § 20-27; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-27), 1-10-1995)

tree
Sec. 102-104. Permit to remove, relocate tree; clear, grub land--Required.

The following provisions shall apply to all real property located within the city. A permit shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree, or to clear land and/or grub land on any developed or undeveloped tract of land within the city except:

(1) Land developed with single-family or two-family residential units.

(2) Land zoned for and proposed for agricultural uses under the city's zoning regulations.

(3) Public rights-of-way.

(Code 1956, § 20-38; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-38), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-105. Same--Application.

Any person wishing to obtain a permit to remove or relocate a tree or clear land and/or grub land under the provisions of this article shall make application to the building official by filing a written application and paying a fee of $10.00 for each acre or part of an acre, to cover the costs of processing the application. No building permit or other permit for the improvement of real property shall be issued by the building official involving the removal of a tree, unless a permit has been approved under the requirements of this division. Before the issuance of a permit, a site plan shall be submitted showing the following information at a scale sufficient to enable the determination of matters required under this division:

(1) Small tracts of land of less than one acre in size:

a. The shape and dimensions of the lot or parcel, together with the existing and proposed locations of structures and improvements, if any.

b. A tree survey showing locations of all existing trees which are subject to this article identified by common or botanical name. Trees proposed to remain, transplanted, or removed shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity, three feet to five feet spacing or closer, may be designated as a clump of trees; the predominate species, estimated number and average size will be listed for such clump of trees.

c. If existing trees are to be transplanted, the proposed relocation for such trees, together with a statement as to how such trees are to be protected during the land clearing and construction and maintained after construction.

d. A statement showing how trees not proposed for removal or relocation are to be protected during any land clearing and construction, i.e., a protective barrier as defined in this article.

e. Locations and dimensions of all setbacks and easements required by the city zoning code.

f. Statements as to grade changes proposed for the lot or parcel and how such changes will affect these regulations.

g. Any proposed tree replacement program.

h. All trees to be retained shall be so identified by some method such as painting, flagging, etc., prior to field inspection. All trees shall have protective barricades, as required, erected prior to issuance of a permit.

(2) Large tracts of land of one acre or more. An aerial of suitable quality, minimum one inch equals 200 feet, to facilitate site plan review and/or a tree survey, including the information required in subsection (1) of this section. A tree survey will be required on all areas for which a tree removal permit is being requested.

(3) Grubbing. Upon written request to the building official, grubbing shall be permitted when the physical condition of the proposed development site does not permit the preparation of a tree survey. Information as to the general number, species and size of the protected trees on the property will be required before grubbing will be authorized. During authorized grubbing all trees will be left in an undisturbed condition with no less than the area defined as the dripline understory left intact.

(4) Alternate site plan information. If there are no trees or vegetative cover located on the site to be developed which are required to be protected under the provisions of this article, the applicant shall so state in his application accompanied by a no tree verification. If such statement is substantiated by an inspection of the site by the building official or his designee, no further information shall be required. No trees greater than four inches diameter at DBH will be removed.

(5) Any and all permits issued by the city shall be declared null and void if commencement of work so permitted is not started within a reasonable time as follows: under one-half acre, one month; over one-half acre, three months. In no case will the permit be valid for more than six months. Permits not used within this period will become null and void and future work will require a new application.

(Code 1956, § 20-39; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-39), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-106. Same--Field checking, final site plan approval required.

Every tree removal application shall be field checked. The building official and city manager may request a recommendation concerning the application from any or all appropriate city departments. No tree removal permit will be approved without final site plan approval of the project, except in the case of a grubbing permit.

(Code 1956, § 20-40; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-40), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-107. Same--Preapplication inspection service.

In connection with applications under the alternate site plan procedure and in connection with applications involving large tracts of property and land clearing, the building official's or his designee's service shall be available for preapplication inspections of the site involved.

(Code 1956, § 20-41; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-41), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-108. Same--Criteria for issuance.

Upon receiving the field inspection report and any requested recommendations concerning the application provided for in section 102-105, the building official shall issue a permit after the application is filed with the building official, or his designee, for the removal or relocation of trees and/or clearing if one or more of the following conditions exists:

(1) Criteria for removal.

a. The tree is located in an area where structures or improvements will be placed according to an approved plan and it unreasonably restricts the economic enjoyment of the property, and the tree cannot be relocated on the site because of age, type, or size of the tree.

b. The tree is diseased, injured, in danger of falling, located within ten feet of existing or proposed structures, five feet for palm trees, or interferes with existing or proposed utility service.

(2) Basis for denial. The building official, upon a determination that an application is to be denied, shall state the basis for such denial specifically and shall notify the applicant of the criteria upon which such denial is predicated.

(Code 1956, § 20-42; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-42), 1-10-1995)

Sec. 102-109. Same--Relocation or replacement.

(a) Conditions. As a condition of the granting of a permit, the applicant will be required to relocate the trees being removed or will be required to replace the trees, unless the size of the parcel, grade or other physical site conditions make relocation impractical. Replacement trees are to be made according to a standard of one inch DBH total replacement for each one inch DBH removed. The replacements shall have at least equal shade potential, screening properties, and other characteristics comparable to that of the trees removed and shall be a minimum of eight feet high at the time of planting and state department of agriculture Nursery Grade #1 or better. A suggested list of replacement trees will be on file in the building official's office. The owner shall exercise reasonable care in maintaining replacement trees so as to promote their growth.

(b) Tree bank. Where trees are to be removed under the provisions of this article, the city shall have the option, with the owner's permission, to relocate the trees not being relocated within the subject property at the city's expense to city-owned property for replanting, either for permanent utilization at the new location, or for future use on other city property. The relocation shall be accomplished within 15 working days of the issuance of a permit, unless it is necessary to root prune the trees to assure their survival, in which case the relocation shall be accomplished within 30 working days of the issuance of a permit or other suitable schedule as agreed by all parties.

(Code 1956, § 20-43; Ord. No. 690, § I(20-43), 1-10-1995)

Secs. 102-110--102-130. Reserved.

Florida Hometown Democracy Petition

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PETITION FORM

104.185 – A person who knowingly signs a petition or petitions for a candidate, minor political party, or an issue

more than one time commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

I am a registered voter of Florida and hereby petition the Secretary of State to place the following amendment

to the Florida Constitution on the ballot in the next general election.

I AM REGISTERED TO VOTE IN ____________________COUNTY.

NAME___________________________________ STREET ADDRESS___________________________________

Please PRINT Name as it appears on Voter I.D. Card PRINT Current Physical Address ( NO PO BOXES)

CITY____________________________ , FL ZIP__________ , USA COUNTY______________________

(County of residence)

IS THIS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR VOTER REGISTRATION IN SAME COUNTY? Yes___ No____

VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER__________________ -or- DATE OF BIRTH _____/_____/_____

Month Day Year

X__________________________________________ DATE______________________

SIGNATURE AS IT APPEARS ON VOTER I.D. CARD DATE SIGNED

BALLOT TITLE: REFERENDA REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS.

BALLOT SUMMARY: Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits

Florida’s natural resources, scenic beauty and citizens. Establishes that before a local government may adopt a

new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment

shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the

local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.

.

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:

Article II, Section 7. Natural resources and scenic beauty of the Florida Constitution is amended to add the following

subsection:

Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida’s

natural resources and scenic beauty, and the long-term quality of life of Floridians. Therefore, before a local government may

adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, such proposed plan or plan amendment

shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning

agency, consideration by the governing body as provided by general law, and notice thereof in a local newspaper of general

circulation. Notice and referendum will be as provided by general law. This amendment shall become effective immediately

upon approval by the electors of Florida.

For purposes of this subsection:

1. “Local government” means a county or municipality.

2. “Local government comprehensive land use plan” means a plan to guide and control future land development in an area

under the jurisdiction of a local government.

3. “Local planning agency” means the agency of a local government that is responsible for the preparation of a

comprehensive land use plan and plan amendments after public notice and hearings and for making recommendations to

the governing body of the local government regarding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive land use plan.

4. “Governing body” means the board of county commissioners of a county, the commission or council of a municipality, or

the chief elected governing body of a county or municipality, however designated.

Serial Number: 03-23 Date Approved: 06-18-03

Return to:

Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.,

P.O. Box 636

New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170-0636

http://www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

ph/fax:: 386-424-0860 email:info@floridahometowndemocracy.com

PLEASE HELP US! Contributions should be made

payable to “Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.”