Agenda - 09-01-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 1 feet of additional impervious surface area to be moved on the lot. He said the applicant then 2 chose to install patio around a proposed pool. He said there is no technical net increase in 3 impervious surface since the infiltration stormwater system heats the hydrologic model, 4 consistent with the allowable impervious surface for the lot. 5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the proposed amendment would require the applicant to 6 post a bond, and if so, who would determine the amount of the bond. 7 Michael Harvey said yes, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. He said 8 the engineer for the property owner would set the bond amount. 9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are other fixed costs for the property owner, 10 beyond the actual construction and the bond. 11 Michael Harvey said the property owner would hire an engineer to develop and install 12 the system, and pay annual maintenance costs. 13 Michael Harvey referred to the example scenario and said if an engineer reports a cost 14 of$25,000 to remove the impervious surface then the bond would also be $25,000. 15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the example scenario really includes a "system". 16 Michael Harvey said the system in the example is the permeable concrete and it does 17 require maintenance. 18 Commissioner Price asked if this will affect cluster developments. 19 Michael Harvey said it does not affect cluster developments. 20 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there will be a regular inspection by County planning. 21 Michael Harvey said yes, since this is part of the County's stormwater program. 22 Commissioner Dorosin said this issue is a good example of why the Board needs to re- 23 visit the public hearing process. He said there have been substantive changes, such as the 24 requirement of a bond, that the public has not had a chance to comment on. 25 Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts if another public hearing is necessary when 26 such substantive changes have been made. 27 John Roberts said if there is a major substantive change, the original public hearing can 28 be voided. He said he is not sure if example rises to that level. He said, he too, shares 29 Commissioner Dorosin's concerns about the County's public hearing process. 30 Chair McKee asked if a $25,000 bond would actually cost $25,000 to the property 31 owner. 32 Michael Harvey said no, the cost of the bond is 110% of the cost of the system. 33 34 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to 35 close the public hearing. 36 37 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner 38 Burroughs, and Commissioner Price); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner 39 Rich) 40 Motion Passed 41 42 Commissioner Rich said she felt that the Board has let the public down when they are 43 not allowed to come back and comment on changes. 44 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with these concerns and said the Board is not giving the 45 public a chance to comment on this and other issues. 46 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to 48 adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 2, and the Ordinance 49 amending the UDO contained within Attachment 3, as recommended by the Planning Board 50 and staff.