Agenda - 06-01-2010 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

55 243 Pete Hallenbeck: To un-geek all that commentary,one way or the other you are either going to tweak the rules to get something . 244 you want or apply discretion as the case of the donut hole saying it is right in between the two reservoirs,how could it hurt. We 245 are going to have to make these discretionary calls. I have one question for Craig. I want to verify the impact of being in the 246 critical watershed area,is it just the density? 247 248 Craig Benedict: Impervious in the protected is 12% and in the critical it is 6% so the runoff can create more water quality 249 differences. 250 251 Brian Crawford: I am really nervous about taking away properry owner's rights and if you hadn't carved that out as isolated area, 252 it's not public information for those people who live there,that in the planning departmenYs view,that particular isolated area may 253 not be necessary to support the critical watershed and so what you have is if we were to say we are going to include it,you will 254 have three properry owners to say,wait a minute,your best advice said you didn't need it but you went ahead and included it. 255 We put it out there and now it is possible we are open to some sort of claim by the existing property owners that we are taking 256 . away their properry rights and so my point is if they really adhere or accept it then we don't have this issue but I am nervous 257 about them being specifically notified that this is going to happen to them that we should go ahead and make a decision here 258 today which is not really a decision but a recommendation to the board but I would rather hear feedback from the property 259 owners. 260 261 Craig Benedict: Nothing with anything I have said at the previous meeting or tonight or at the public hearing means that we don't 262 need that. I am saying that the way we define the half mile from this or that and using the ridgeline all those technical definitions, 263 when you use them,that is not covered. It doesn't mean we don't need it. Do we need 2,680 feet from the reservoir or do we 264 need 3,000 feet from the reservoir. We better define these streams and buffers around the reservoirs,class 1,2,these stream 265 waters, that's just an area that when we use the use the technical definition it fell out. It doesn't mean we don't need that 266 anymore than any other things it just doesn't meet the 2,680 feet from the Class I Reservoir. If we open ourselves up to say that 267 is not helpful,not saying that,it doesn't meet those other six definitions that we had. 268 269 Samantha Cabe: But we chose those other definitions, those distances from creeks and/or streams, they were derived to 270 determine the area that was necessary, in someone's opinion, to protect the watershed so any area that is not within those ' 271 definitions,if I were representing a properry owner who owns properry in the donut hole and I was restricted,I would come back 272 and say these are the definitions that the planning department said applied to protect the watershed. My property is not within 273 any of those definitions so why are my rights being limited. 274 275 Brian Crawford: Can we take a straw vote? 276 277 May Becker: I know we talked about this the last time but isn't it more difficult to move the critical line than to simply leave it 278 where it is in terms of people saying that now my property is in or out of it,whereas can't one keep the original critical line and 279 define it as opposed to reconstructing it one piece at a time? 280 281 Craig Benedict: You have to notify people either way whether you put it in a critical area or take it out. 282 283 May Becker: Even if the line is there now. 284 285 Craig Benedict: Yes. You have to say we have the 1994 map and this is included as a critical area on that map. This exercise 286 is to try to make the map technically meet the very descriptive areas so we had six definitions that were very clear and cover all 287 the streams and the seventh definition was to handle this aberration. If we use just the half mile from the reserooir,in this case 288 we did go a half mile from these reservoirs because this water from this area does not flow directly into the reservoir,it flows into 289 the Eno south of it so the criteria needed to protect the Eno and the West Fork of the Eno didn't pop up this far. These are both 290 within a half mile of reservoir but under our new more descriptive definitions,we found out using the topography that it doesn't 291 flow directly here. There is a ridge line and this flows below the dam. In 1994 they didn't use to the mini sub-basin ridge line. 292 293 Larry Wright: I don't understand this because everybody or it is well known that aquifers are directly related to surface water so 294 are you saying that aquifers do not mix with these reservoirs? 295 296 Craig Benedict: They do. 297 298 Larry Wright: All I hear is surface water and one of the things that may directly address but I don't hear anything about the 299 aquifers and I am very unsettled about this. 300 301 Brian Crawford: If we did a straw vote right now,where would the Planning Board,the members here,where would we split ouf? 302 , 303 Samantha Cabe: Just about including the donut hole?