PC2 PDD 220288 LDC 902 grading affidavit and as built requirements
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 7, 2022
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted, because it is an image-only scan, so nothing in it is searchable here. It still reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 7, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 6m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 29 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Planning Commission members, Patty Crest Planning and Development Department. We have two land code uh development code amendments today. Um for both those items you will sit in at the as the local planning agency. Uh for the first item it is uh PC two, PDD 220288, and Ed Zodien will We'll be presenting that to you.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ed Zodian. I'm a Planner One with long-range planning. The matter before you is uh Land Development Code, here and after L D C amendment to section nine oh two. Uh the proposed amendments, I'm sorry.
There we go.
Well.
I never claimed to be technically proficient.
The proposed amendments were presented to the horizontal round table and interested parties on uh March sixteenth.
I'd like to digress for a moment, but if we can get this thing.
Just wanna give you a little back bow uh background. The current process for Uh for this matter is that at the initial application when a site plan is presented, d there is uh it's complete with the horizontal features. uh and before the house slab is poured There is a form board that's required and reviewed. That form board does provide elevations. Uh the proposed
process is going to include those two steps and will We'll also include a grading affidavit and an approved grading plan be provided. Now if that grading affidavit or something reflects that this is in a FEMA designated flood zone, then a AS built for that is required.
The
The site plan, the form board survey, the grading affidavit and the final inspections do provide the uh safeguards in this case so that a in the event it is not in a FEMA uh designated flood zone, a as built for that is not required.
Now we can.
Wow. Well, that's going backwards. Or excuse me.
That's the one uh the one before the the previous thank you. There are essentially two modifications to the uh section 902. The first is in 902 K1, where it's going to remove the engineer of record to inspect the lot and provide the ASB built. Because as I said, what we're proposing is an AS built will only be required if it's in a FEMA designated flood zone. Next slide, please.
it will add in section K four C It will add a certificate of completion, an affidavit of lot grading, and finished floor elevation compliance. an elevation certificate. So that for buildings and structures in flood hazard areas, an elevation certificate and as build survey demonstrating conformance with the approved stormwater management plan will be will be required. Uh we are again removing, however, the asbuilt as a general
designation unless it's in that flood zone.
We sugg we request that you find this proposed ordinance consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. However, I am here to answer any questions as is Representatives from Building Construction Services.
Chairman Mariano. Sure. Yeah, go ahead. You talk about good afternoon. You talk about residential development. This apply for residential and comercial as well?
No, just residential.
Just residential. Okay.
That's my question. Okay.
Anybody else?
No comments? Okay.
Did you want to add something? No. Oh okay. All right. All right. So uh no further questions.
Just one comment by way of explanation. So I think what Ed didn't mention is that our current code is probably more stringent than the Florida building code currently because we par we currently report as built for throughout the county. Whereas If you read the Florida Building Code, it appears that it's only which should be required in flood hazard areas. So this is attempting to make our land development code more consistent with the Florida Building Code.
Okay.
Thank you for that clarification.
Anything else? If not. I have a motion. Motion to approve. It's second. Motion and second. To approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries.