Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Engineer and board debate stormwater numbers, maintenance mechanisms for PUD site

New Smyrna Beach Planning & Zoning Board · June 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Engineers said the project will follow newly adopted city and Saint John's stormwater standards, design to 25-year and 100-year events (approx. 9.5 and 12.4 inches respectively) with a factor-of-safety of 2; the board pressed for enforceable long-term maintenance via recorded easement language rather than a bond.

The project engineer described the technical baselines the team will use for the proposed medical complex’s stormwater design and explained how the design accounts for extreme events.

"Mean annual storm events [are] 5.34 inches. The 25-year, I believe, in [the] city of New Smyrna is like 9.5, and then 100 year storm event is 12.4," the project's engineer said, adding the design includes a factor-of-safety of two and must comply with recently adopted city standards and Saint John's stricter rules. The engineer also noted that the design standard limits discharge to no more than pre-development runoff for the site.

Board members questioned what would happen in catastrophic hurricanes that exceed design thresholds, and whether owners could provide guarantees beyond standard engineering practice. The applicant suggested recorded easement language giving the city enforcement rights over the stormwater system so the city could compel maintenance rather than relying on external county mechanisms. The engineer confirmed some jurisdictions require a 20-year maintenance cost estimate be recorded as a county document that gives enforcement power to the jurisdiction.

The board recorded those expectations as part of the conditions it attached to the PUD recommendation and asked that site-plan-level engineering and maintenance provisions be supplied during subsequent review.

Provenance: topic introduced SEG 163; engineer remarks SEG 184–236; maintenance and easement discussion SEG 304–316.