Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda B&E 040302� � II. III. IV. V. VII. VIII. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS AGENDA BEAUTIFICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, April 3, 2002 5:30 P.M. City Hall - Growth Management Chambers 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Call to Order Roll Call: Reqular Members: Donna Wisneski - Chair Connie Premuroso Jeffrey Renault Bettie Marks Richard Mulligan William Olsen Richard Beladino �� ; t-''Y�' � �� � �� � Approval of the minutes for February 6, 2002 and March 6, 2002 meetings. Items by City Council Liaison and Staff Liaison Oid Business a) Environmental Assessment — City's Environmental Consultant Jim Schneile New Business Adjournment � Beautification and Environmental Committee Summary Notes Wednesday, February 6, 2002 The February 6, 2006, regular meeting of the PBG B&E Committee has called to order by Donna Wisneski at 5:40 P.M. in the Growth Management Department meeting room of the Municipal Complex located at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The following members were in attendance: Connie Premuroso, Jeff Renault, Betty Marks, Richard Mulligan, Richard Beladino and Donna Wisneski. City Council Liaison David Clark and Staff Liaison Mark Hendrickson were present. Approval of the minutes: The January 9, 2002 meeting minutes were approved. Items bv the Citv Council Liaison and Staff Liaison Mark passed around pictures and news articles about the Arbor Day celebration. He thought everything went well. Donna thanked the B&E members that attended. Oid Business a) Environmental Code Text Amendment: Donna states that the members have had the proposed amendment for the past month for review and opened the discussion up. Mark states that he believes the amendments follows the B&E Committee original letter of March 31, 2000 on the subject. Donna states that the City is hearing that small acreage purchase is unlikely. So the options are fewer. Donna asked if staff couid require preservation on site period. The term "Browardization" was used to describe the City without preserves. Richard Beladino agrees with Donna and believes that once a project has a preserve approved by the City Council is should remain a preserve. [Mark gives David Clark a copy of a Post "letter to the editor" that Mark wrote.] The Committee agrees that there shouid be the ability to mitigate, but once the City Council approves a preserve on or off site it is forever. � Jeff makes the motion to recommend to City Councii approval of the proposed amendments to the environmental code with one change, and that is that preserves should stay preserves once approved by City Council. Richard asked Mark if he thinks the code is strong enough. Mark states that he believes the developers will object to some of the language and it wili probably be modified. The motion is approved 6-0. David thanks the Committee for their recommendation. New Business a) Development Impact to Animal Habitat: Donna explains that she requested this item be put on the agenda. [David Clark has to leave to speak at another meeting, but states he is glad that the Committee is discussing this issue.] Discussions by Committee members centered around what is occurring when they see dead animals on the road or hearing about the nuisances causes by animals passing through neighborhoods. Mark questioned the Committee about what animals are they referring too, and explained what a developer was required to submit prior to clearing woodland. The environmental assessment would describe what listed (protected) plant and animal life is on a tract. Unprotected animals have to basically fen for themselves. The tape ends. The following is based on what Mark Hendrickson remembers: The Committee advises Mark to draft a letter to the City Council through the City Manager. The letter should acquaint them with the non-protected wildlife problems/issues/concerns and recommend that City staff amend the existing codes or draft new codes to address how developers handle and protect non-protected wildlife prior to land clearing. The next meeting will be March 6, 2002. Beautification and Environmental Committee Summary Notes Wednesday, March 6, 2002 The February 6, 2006, regular meeting of the PBG B&E Committee has called to order by Donna Wisneski at 5:45 P.M. in the Growth Management Department meeting room of the Municipal Complex located at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The foilowing members were in attendance: Connie Premuroso, Jeff Renault, Betty Marks, William Olsen, Richard Beladino and Donna Wisneski. City StafF Liaison Mark Hendrickson was present. Approval of the minutes: The February 6, 2002 minutes were not available. Items bv the Citv Council Liaison and Staff Liaison Mark states that the Florida Forest Service has recommended approval for our 2001Tree City USA certification to the Arbor Day Foundation. Donna speaks about a very successful Arbor Day celebration at Lake Catherine. Old Business a) Animal Protection codes: Donna explains that the Committee decided last month to learn more about protecting animals, specifically unprotected animals. There has been a lot of road kill. The Committee wanted to know what was being done about the wild animals, what are the codes, what is in an environmental assessment, how do we protect against nuisances cause by roaming animals. Mark explains that the Committee passed a motion to have him draft a letter to the City Manager and City Council to make them aware of the wildlife issues, as Donna mentioned. Mark states that he met with the Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu and City Manager Ron Ferris on this subject. Mr. Ferris directed Mark to tell the Committee to start right away on researching the facts and recommending a course of f action. Mark threw out some ideas for the Committee to consider during the fact-finding stage. Mark handed out the different parts of the City's codes that deal with animal protected and wildiife assessments. Section 14-2 declares the City to be a bird and wildlife sanctuary. Section 78-248 (10) requires the environmental assessment to have a complete habitat analysis. Section 78-312 requires a plan to deal with potential nuisances caused by rodents and vermin, prior to clearing. A discussion about what is in an environmental assessment occurred. Richard Mulligan asked how are Gopher tortoises relocated. Mark explains a method. Richard Beladino asked about if Legacy Place did an unprotected animals nuisance plan. Mark explained their plan called for the clearing to proceed from east to west. The clearing would occur over several days and the potential nuisance animals would hopefully find culverts or cross roads to the woods to the west. This may not a good plan, but the code is designed to protect people, rather than animals. Betty asked if there is a code committee. Mark explained the process on writing codes. Ultimately, City Council approves codes, but many times codes start in committees like B&E. Jeff asked if I knew of any other cities had codes that protected unprotected wildlife. Mark did not but would research this subject on the internet. Jeff also suggested getting the City's environmental consultant to speak to the Committee. Donna wants to make sure environmental assessment information does not fall through the cracks. Richard Beladino and Donna agree that this research and potential code amendment has to happen quickly. Mark telis the Committee that the PBG Neighborhood Association has also said that wildlife needs to be controlled better during construction, even if the developer has to pay to help. The Committee requested Mark to have the environmental consultant to discuss a typical environmentai assessment at the next meeting. New Business a) 2002 agenda: April meeting wiil be the review of a typical environmental assessment. The next meeting will be April 3, 2002. March 15, 2002 To: Mark Henrickson, City Forester From: Bonnie Peacock, Forestry Technician RE: Issues concerning new development vs. wildlife Points to discuss: 1. Advice is directly from US Fish & Wildlife biologist and Busch Wildlife Sanctuary animal rehabilitator. 2. Mortality rate due to relocating animals is 80%, due primarily to stress of the relocation. This percentage was developed with input of reputable trappers tracking the animals after relocation. 3. By law, only specific animals can be relocated. Those most desired to relocate happen to be the most difficult to trap. Fox and bobcat are the most desired to relocate, however, raccoons are what are going to be caught in traps. Raccoons are illegal to relocate. 4. Many animals have or carry disease. The disease parvo is species specific and very contagious. 5. Locating a willing donor site will be very difficult. Relocating animals to an already populated donor site will cause problems with disease, territories & over population to name a few. 6. It has been found that animals survive better when allowed to fend for themselves and disperse into neighboring / adjacent lands and preserves. 7. Relocating is a`feel good' solution only. 8. Additional info... Gopher turtles which are found to be diseased will have their burrows plowed over, rather than be relocated. The areas of relocation of gopher turtles have been limited due to the possibility of spreading disease.