8/10/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock believed that Planning contacted every Commissioner who is working with particular areas - transportation, recreation, etc. He stated that his only question is whether there is enough flexibility to look at each situation rather than just apply a broad specific criteria - in other words, enough flexibility not to require that something be done whether it makes any sense or not. Mr. King stated that they will have the flexibility, and actually drainage on a particular site will be handled through the Land Development Code. Public Works Director Davis agreed there is some flexibility, but pointed out that it is still in the context of the St. John's District's rules and the DER's, which dictate a minimum standard. Commissioner Bird stated that he agreed with the concept of retention on site, but he wished there was some way this could be done through undulating swales rather than ugly retainage ponds, which he felt are eyesores. It was noted there is a choice of methods for draining, but the retention pond is the most economical. Mr. Davis explained that they do not dictate the method as long as it gets the job done, and the new implementing ordinance will merely require that post development conditions will not create more of a burden than predevel- opment conditions. Commissioner Wodtke brought up Page 63, Paragraph J, -re drainage system maintenance where it states that maintenance shall be provided by owners when properties are not dedicated to the county. He felt we might need to say when properties are not dedicated to and accepted by the county since there are situations where it is not advisable for the County to accept dedicated property. Community Development Director King felt that is a good point and stated they are including it. 29 AUG 10 1982 M1 ; 50 n41902