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.