Laserfiche WebLink
After extended commentary by staff, Commissioners, Mr. Taub, and Mr. Adair <br />regarding the necessity for a second opinion on the hydrology report, the Board took the <br />following action: <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION, and by a 4-0 <br />vote (Chairman Davis recused himself), the Motion <br />carried unanimously. The Board approved staff's <br />recommendation to require submission of a hydrology <br />report and to require a hydrology report expert review fee. <br />Director Boling next discussed other submittal requirements, remarking that when <br />the site plan is submitted to the County, it goes through the TRC (Technical Review Committee) <br />process. <br />Commissioner Solari required clarification on Section #3(1)(m) of the Ordinance <br />(page 92 of the backup), which pertained to having the project engineer submit a cost estimate <br />for restoring the site in accordance with Chapter 934 requirements. <br />Director Boling explained that in the current Ordinance, there is a requirement to <br />post security for restoring a site, which is based on a "per acre", and which has not been updated <br />for about eighteen (18) years. He explained that the most accurate way to ascertain restoration <br />costs is to have the project engineer submit a cost estimate which would be reviewed by the <br />County engineer. <br />Commissioner Solari remarked that there were some hydrological issues that were <br />being addressed by both the County and by SJRWMD, and he wanted to remove from the LDR's <br />those items which were duplicative, and to state therein that all the demands of the SJRWMD <br />must be met. He noted that there were some updated fees in the proposed amendments to the <br />15 <br />December 8, 2008 <br />