My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:43:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:43:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
improved and County in the first sentence. So it would read,All roadways within <br />the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards. So thats <br />an editorial change. <br />Proposed Condition M would be the same thing as what I had suggested for proposed <br />Condition L on the Suffolk project, which was to make clear that you cant have non- <br />structural type of or non-habitable type of activities, you know, within the Zone AE area, <br />such as your parking lot and your roadway and all that. Because if you were going to say <br />that, if you leave it as it is and you have that easement designated as such, then that <br />roadway would not be possible, you know, that north-south roadway interconnectivity. <br />DARROW:I think thats different, Sid. Condition M? <br />FUKE:That would be to Condition M. Correct. <br />DARROW:This is referring to the drainage. Condition O would be similar to <br />theConditionL. <br />FUKE:Oh,youarecorrect.Oh,thatsright.Imsorry,thankyouvery <br />much, Jeff. The Condition M, what were suggesting here was to say that not mandate <br />that the study have to be submitted to FEMA, cause you already have, an application to <br />FEMA has already been filed, you know, for an amendment. And, understandably, you <br />need to also have like additional drainage study done for all of the planned improvements <br />within the project. And, generally, when you do a drainage plan, thats not subject to any <br />FEMA amendment, you dont have to send it to FEMA. But the way that the language is <br />written it implies, or at least its not clear, that that same drainage study would have to be <br />directed to FEMA. So we wanted to kind of like make it clear that, as well as like to <br />indicate like when the drainage study would have to be done. So it would read, The <br />drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the <br />Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. <br />The drainage study is important to, prior to issuance of Plan Approval. Because once you <br />get Plan Approval then pretty much youre on your way to doing specific design pursuant <br />to the plans. So you need to pretty much know how your drainage system is going to <br />work. <br />And to delete the second sentence, and I just kind of added that, If deemed necessary by <br />the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management <br />Agency clearances and/or approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any land <br />disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the AE zone or the <br />corrected effective base flood plain. So, Public Works reviews the drainage plan and <br />they can say like you need a FEMA amendment. If thats the case, then the plan has to <br />go up to FEMA. So thats all were saying, which is current law right now. And, then, <br />again, making sure that all of the necessary drainage improvements have to be completed <br />before occupancy is done, the concurrency notion. <br />21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.