Laserfiche WebLink
Recommendation No. 1.B., ".....to implement any new or updated Best <br />Management Practices (BMPs) identified by County staff..." He stated that it might be <br />problematic to impose some of the new or updated BMPs to an operating entity, which has <br />already achieved a certain sense of certainty in their existing permit. <br />Recommendation No. 4, "....to submit baseline data on the type, extent, and <br />condition of vegetation and wetlands located on-site and within off-site areas abutting..." He <br />felt it was potentially problematic to try to obtain this information off-site, and cautioned staff to <br />draft the regulations such that they can be complied with. <br />He felt that Recommendation No. 7, "....Establish specifications for the hydrology <br />report..." was duplicating efforts of the regional water management districts, whose regulations <br />preempt any local regulations on water issues. <br />Les Bromwell, P.E., Indian River County, believed that the hydrology reports <br />would be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer or by a Geologist. <br />Chairman Bowden enumerated Recommendation Nos. 8 through 11, with no <br />comments by Board or individuals. <br />Commissioner Flescher questioned whether the boring, which might be needed for <br />the assessment, might contribute to the problems that the County is trying to prevent on <br />Recommendation No. 12, "Require assessment of location, depth, thickness, and extent of the <br />confining layer...." He also felt that the word "assessment" was rather vague. <br />Director Boling revealed, for Commissioner Flescher, that the information should <br />be addressed in a hydrology report. He reiterated that the recommendations did not contain the <br />exact wording which would be reflected in the final LDR's. <br />6 <br />October 6, 2008 <br />