Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC gives technical comments on Black Rock subdivision: sidewalks, stormwater, wetlands, school analysis required
Summary
Developers presenting a preliminary site plan for a 50 40 unit subdivision on Black Rock Road were told to add sidewalks, a perimeter buffer, street trees, and provide stormwater, geotechnical and traffic studies. Health, building and fire staff flagged septic, floodplain and hydrant/water‑access requirements.
Kent Bush, engineer for the Black Rock subdivision applicant, presented a preliminary site plan for what he described as “a site plan for our client for a 50 40 unit subdivision off Black Rock Road” to the Nassau County Development Review Committee on Aug. 19. The submission included a preliminary wetland study that has not yet been verified by the state.
Planning staff told the applicant to ensure the perimeter buffer along Black Rock Road meets the code minimum (planning staff said the southern portion should be at least 7.5 feet wide), and noted a neighborhood park location must place every lot within a half‑mile walk shed. Stephanie Kaiser, planning, also cited tree planting requirements (section 3705C1) and street‑lighting requirements.
Development services staff, Tim Davidson, listed roadway and stormwater requirements. Davidson said a sidewalk will be required along the Black Rock Road frontage and internal sidewalks on both sides of internal roads at a 6‑foot width. He noted the project must meet Article 10 stormwater management rules, provide a geotechnical report, and comply with BOCC resolution 2019‑174 requiring a traffic impact analysis; he advised contacting the county traffic engineer early. He also said a preliminary plat is required but may be submitted after site engineering approval per section 29‑14.
Additional technical items included a required mail kiosk (subject to U.S. Postal Service requirements), school‑impact items, and standard fees. Davidson noted that section 5.07 requires school bus‑stop location approval by the School Board and a school‑impact analysis; construction inspection fees and a preconstruction meeting will apply. He emphasized that DRC approval must be obtained prior to commencing work, citing section 6.201.
Health and building review flagged infrastructure and hazard concerns. Ronnie of the health department confirmed the proposal anticipates public water and septic and reminded the applicant to limit density consistent with health rules (he said, “make sure you don't put more than 4 homes on an acre”). Constance Lake of the building department said the FEMA flood‑insurance map (FEMA FIRMs 216 and 217) shows special‑flood‑hazard areas running through the site and advised delineating flood hazard information on site plans and the plat.
Fire staff outlined water‑supply and access needs. Amanda Bauman (fire) said if a public water line is within a quarter‑mile, the developer must bring it to the site; otherwise the project will need dry hydrants or drafting pads. She said typical roadways are designed to a 20‑foot minimum clear width and that the HOA documents must prohibit street parking so the 20‑foot clear width is maintained. Hydrant spacing was stated at a maximum of 500 feet along the truck travel path.
Wetland mapping on the plan showed marsh areas and an existing pond; the applicant said they may modify the pond to improve lot usability. Staff recommended coordinating septic setbacks and wetlands delineation with the health department.
Ending
Staff provided a list of technical submittal items for the applicant to address in site engineering plans. The DRC reiterated that its comments are advisory and that required studies, state verifications, and permitting steps must be completed before county approvals and construction.
