My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/9/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
8/9/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:46 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:13:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/09/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
A11 G- Q.9 199G' <br />POUK A �.��' <br />used for stormwater management and would be used concurrently for <br />irrigation. In the wet detention you can draw the water only <br />between certain elevations. Mr. Cain felt that we need to go <br />back and look at the Comp Plan policy to see if it has perhaps <br />gone a little too far, and perhaps a solution may be that we <br />could make the LDR permissive rather than mandatory. <br />Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of challenging <br />the Flood Zone Maps, but it was noted that ultimately it has to <br />be the federal government that makes any change in these and it <br />would be an involved procedure. <br />Todd Smith, Engineer with Peterson & Votapka, felt there <br />were a couple of issues brought up at workshops that still need <br />to be answered. He first referred to 930.5(1) (e) which exempts <br />the County from their own ordinance and did not see why that is <br />in there. Secondly, in regard to adopting the lower discharge <br />rate, Mr. Smith felt that the Indian River Farms study will have <br />a very significant effect upon development in this county because <br />the restriction of 2" runoff in most instances will require a <br />developer to lose 25/300 of his property to put in the area <br />needed to store the difference, especially when you add this to <br />the County stormwater requirements. Mr. Smith next referred to <br />the requirement on Page 5 that "Post development runoff shall not <br />exceed pre -development runoff unless a maximum discharge rate has <br />been adopted for the applicable drainage basin and the discharge <br />does not exceed that rate." He wished to know who it has to be <br />adopted by and does it have to go before a public hearing or is <br />it being adopted at the staff level. He also asked if independ- <br />ent studies, such as the Indian River Farms study, have to be <br />checked to be sure they are concurrent with the technical data <br />being required by this County's ordinance. . <br />Director Keating believed what we are dealing with here are <br />different basins. Some of the basins are entirely water control <br />districts, and when one is out -falling into a drainage district <br />canal, one is using someone else's facilities; so, in that case, <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.