Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Samantha Cabe: My response to Judith's amendment is that I don't believe it is necessary because I believe our 38 planning department, particularly Mr. Bowles, will enforce our ordinances to the utmost of their limits and we can't add to what those limits are. I trust staff. I don't think we can go above and beyond what our ordinances say. Judith Wegner: My point is that I think it should be explicit. I appreciate the developers comments. I know you said what you though was appropriate. Our job is to do the job so to try to be forthright as to what this is. Once a permit is given, you could sell to someone else who would develop it and it would be subject to the permits. I appreciate your comments but I feel given the sensitivity I would like to offer an amendment. Here is what I would propose. At the top of page 65, I would suggest that Mr. Bowles would specify one of those is the statement with the or there meaning you choose which of those or that we specify which of those. Is that up to the applicant to decide because of the 'or'? Glenn Bowles: I can clarify, they have the option to build the road to DOT standards with DOT's review and approval or they could post bond of a certain amount and have it built at a later date and if they don't built it the bond will kick in. Judith Wegner: I am trying to see where this proposed language would go. I think it would be an added item to say the following: To the extent permissible under Orange County Ordinances, the owner of such applicant shall provide a bond or other sufficient insurance that not only road construction but for two years after road construction, there will not be adverse environmental effect as a result of the road's establishment. Brian Crawford: Does everyone understand the amendment? Judith Wegner: Paragraph 6-To the extent permissible under Orange County ordinances, the owner(applicant shall provide a bond or other sufficient assurance to ensure that there is adequate protection of the water quality in the area following construction and for a period of at least two years thereafter. Samantha Cabe: Is there something in the ordinance That will allow for that? Michael Harvey: I am going to be general. Within the erosion control ordinance there are provisions when you are pulling an erosion control permit to post bonds fo ensure that you have completed land disturbing and mitigation tests in accordance with approved permit. Any time you disturb stream, under state law, and even under County regulation, you got to mitigate that disturbance. That mitigation is left up to erosion control to determine what is appropriate per stale standard. We do defer to state standard when it comes to mitigation. There are bonding provisions that would allow the developer to post fhe bond to do an incremental approach as necessary and erosion control determining if it is acceptable or not. Glenn Bowles: This will clarify what we would be seeking. Samantha Cabe: Is there a provision in the ordinance that requires that bond to ensure the two years after completion? Michael Harvey: I'm not going to say it focuses primarily on the timeframe of two years. It would be fair to say that fhe bond focuses on the completion of the project to the extent where erosion control certifies it meets the standards of the local erosion control ordinance, the local stormwater ordinance, and also any state requirements of mitigation. That can take longer than two years. Samantha Cabe: They have to complete the mitigation process as well. Will all that be done by Erosion Control whether or not that wording is in our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? Glenn Bowles: Not to that extent. The other option would be to make it a condition of the Flood Plain development, which staff does have control.