Minutes 08-27-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Jeff Akin: I'm not sure if we're at that level yet. We're not at the point that we have designed the stormwater conveyance system, the ditches that you're talking about. It would be our belief and hopes that water would not be quickly conveyed off of individual property homeowners to that pond. Most of that 6,000 gallons would be used for the road construction on a temporary basis as well as some of the roadside ditches. The way that this property drains, it doesn't all drain to that spot. Some of it drains naturally off to the side. Larry Wright: My concern here is with neighboring properties. Jeff Akin: I understand. We're simply not at the engineering level right now to be able to comment on how that system would really be designed. There may end up being two storm water ponds. John Roberts: There was a response to Mr. Wright's first question regarding community wells. I believe your response was based on a conversation you had with Tom Konsler? Joe Lyle: That's correct. John Roberts: Heresay testimony is generally not allowed for this type of hearing. I recommend that you respond to the Board in writing to that question. Joe Lyle: I would be glad to. I have requested that in writing from Mr. Konsler. Michael Harvey: I just want to make a statement concerning the storm water. If you can refer to page 163-164 of your packet. You do have a memorandum that has been produced by Mr. Terry Hackett, our Storm Water Resources Officer, who indicates that based on the preliminary assessment, a 6,000-gallon depression area seems sufficient. But obviously, a formal storm water plan is going to be required. That is going to be a required and mandated condition for approval of this if we get to that point. If the Planning Board can make an affirmative recommendation, staff will recommend a formal storm water plan. But at least as it has been sized currently, Mr. Hackett does not see an issue with it complying with local or state storm water or nutrient issues. Commissioner McKee: If I might point out one thing. This abstract on page 164 refers to a 6,000-square foot potential storm water treatment area. That is entirely different than a 6,000- gallon. I'm sitting here thinking that 6,000 gallons is approximately one tractor trailer. This would be smaller than a child's wading pool Michael Harvey: I apologize for the misuse of the term and for the confusion it has created. John Roberts: I have a comment with regard to the Chair's question regarding the restrictive covenant document. This document actually predates a General Assembly law in 2009 that made it illegal for these types of covenants to outright ban solar reflectors on homes. They are still allowed to regulate the location. That's just for your information on that question. Johnny Randall: Shouldn't the retention pond be measured in cubic feet and not square feet? Larry Wright: It would seem so. Commissioner Gordon: It just strikes me that there are a number of questions that have been unanswered that are going to be answered by written comments. If they are not answered, then I would strongly urge us, if it is approved, that any development that is here have any conditions so that if something is missing and not definite, that before it is built, that there be a condition that would specify. There have been a number of questions that we have asked that haven't been answered that would be deferred to written comments. I would just urge that at the Planning Board level and at the County Commissioners level that there be conditions that address anything that's important that's not definitively addressed.