Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

193 Approved 2/2/11 717 Shannon Berry: We can add language to B1 along those lines that says basically this shall be reviewed in accordance with state 718 requirements and must be approved by the Erosion Control supervisor. We can change the language so it doesn't imply that is a 719 done deal. 720 721 Alan Campbell: Make it active. 722 723 Brian Crawford: I like that. May, do you want to look at that change. 724 725 Shannon Berry: We can come up with a couple of options for that. 726 727 Brian Crawford: After tonight we will reword that and shoot it out. 728 729 Alan Campbell: That will cover everything, not just 13, everything in D. 730 731 Brian Crawford: We are back to "permitted by right ". 732 733 May Becker: It is a concern. You are putting up a list of Things people aie allowed to do with a stream buffer and I think we 734 should know what they are. 735 736 Brian Crawford: What would your suggestion be about this permitted by right? What would you like to see? 737 738 May Becker: Something along the lines, I would take right out and say something along the lines of, permitted if special use or 739 some kind of permitting is approved. 740 741 Brian Crawford: Staff? 742 743 Perdita Holtz: I think we could change it to uses permitted without mitigation and change the sentence that's right behind that 744 says the following uses are allowed as a matter of right and then make sure when you look at A3 it says structure are approved, 745 approval of a site plan and all that but add a 4 that says if structures are not proposed that they still have to ... we need to 746 determine what the permit would be called but a type of permit shall be required to be approved prior to commencement of the 747 activity. 748 749 Shannon Berry: If you are not happy with the word "permitted or permit ", the state uses the term "allowable" which is a little more 750 open ended. We could change permitted by right to uses allowable with mitigation. We could change the topic of the whole 751 section, the whole title that says allowable in the stream buffers. Does that help? 752 753 Craig Benedict: It is more requested than permitted. 754 755 Shannon Berry: We can change all the "permitted" to "allowable ". 756 757 Pete Hallenbeck: May, on item 8 is there some specific scenario you are thinking of? You have to let people go to their land, it's 758 25 feet, the streams are big, what exactly are you going to do? What's worrying you? 759 760 May Becker: What's worrying me is the developers. In places like Florida, they have very lax laws where they build shoddy 761 buildings, they pave over things. 762 763 Pete Hallenbeck: Is your concern, for example, you go down the stream and they are putting in a driveway and they are going to 764 pave it and put in ditches and let it run right into the stream? Is this gravel versus asphalt? 765 766 May Becker: My concern is just thoughts it could potentially change one particular landscape to something else. For example, if 767 you have a lot with a lot of trees or fairly rural and then you allow, you don't have a lot of rules, and a developer comes in form 768 you know where and doesn't know the community well and decides to subdivide that land into very small lots close to the stream 769 with a lot of driveways and not much vegetation is around there anymore. The other question, can people just fertilize lawns 770 without any regulations, I think the answer was not it was a one time application that was allowed but for me it's not clear. 771 772 Pete Hallenbeck: So a lot of what you're wrestling with is big picture stuff. 773 774 May Becker: It is but it also not completely unrealistic. We are welcoming development which, there are different ways to 775 approach development. 776 13