Minutes 08-27-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: I'll just remind everyone here the applicant has an obligation to respond to any and all questions in writing that will be presented to the Planning Board and also to the County Commissioners. I would dare say that if staff does not feel those questions have been adequately addressed or answered, we have never been shy to recommend conditions for the applicant to have to adhere to. But the applicant also runs the risk if they don't submit the necessary information and get a negative finding by the County Planning Board, the County Planning staff will ultimately deny the project. So, obviously, it is in their best interest to address those comments, and we will work with them in order to make sure that the comments and questions will be addressed by the Planning Board meeting. Larry Wright: Any more questions by the Planning Board or Commissioners? Any more presentations from the applicant? At this time, I'd like to entertain any testimony from the public. I have Mary Jo Fife for item 1. Would you please come to the podium, state your name, and that you've been duly sworn. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Jo Fife: Hi, I'm Mary Jo Fife, and my husband and I own 3 acres of land that back up into this development just exactly east. Myself and one other person have wells on that land. Our projected idea is to build homes on those 3 acres for land for families. The well that we have is directly east of what is proposed to be built. This well that we have, although it serves only one person and has for the last 10 or 12 years, has gone dry and we've had to have it re-drilled again. That is only sufficient for one person right now. We know there's going to be problems. There is a family with two or three kids next door, juxtaposition to this one, and I'm not sure what their position is on their well. If there is an excessive well use on a well that is very close and juxtaposition to this well, I'm looking at the land and I think it's maybe 300 feet or so from that, and I think that it could have an effect upon our well. We do not want it to go dry, just because it's a new housing development. That's our major concern. After the comments, it was discovered that Ms. Fife had not been sworn in. She was then sworn in and repeated her comments. John Roberts: Ms. Fife, you need to repeat your comments since you were just sworn in. You need to repeat, if you can, the essence of what you just testified to. Mary Jo Fife: We have three acres of land. Two acres that bridge back up to this development. There's only one other person in that area that has property and has a well on it. Our well from my best observation, from having attended the first meeting, I think it was August 6th, is in close proximity to the area where the well is going to be put for this development. My concern is, that because our well has gone dry and we had to have it drilled again about ten years ago, plus the fact that the well has only been serving one person for the last 10-12 years, that there may be a problem with the well given if this huge well is put in close juxtaposition to our well. Diana Walstad: My name is Diana Walstad, and I was the one that wrote the letter about the pump and dump system. I would just like to say, though I wrote it in the letter, in 2002 my well went dry and one of the neighbors next door in a ritzy development had a pump and dump system and it was running continuously, the well was pumping out water into the creek. Meanwhile, my well was almost dry and I couldn't take a shower. These rich people were using the water, pumping it out, for their house. I thought it was outrageous. If you want people to support this, then people like myself need to be protected. I'm all for a re-circulating system, that's fine, but pump and dump is just a terrible waste of groundwater. I live in a lot adjoining lot #25.