HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes B&E 030602Beautification 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 following 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 by the City 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
L j
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 wildlife 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
tells 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 environmental assessment at the next meeting.
New Business
a) 2002 agenda: April meeting will be the review of a typical environmental
assessment.
The next meeting will be April 3, 2002.
L
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.