Minutes 06-16-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey said the scenario shows a 3 acre parcel of property with an allotted 7000 square feet of impervious surface that is at its maximum. He said this proposal would allow this property owner to remove existing driveway and install an infiltration based stormwater system. He said this specific example, of permeable concrete, only counts as 50 percent of total impervious surface area, thereby allowing for an approximately 1500 square feet of additional impervious surface area to be moved on the lot. He said the applicant then chose to install patio around a proposed pool. He said there is no technical net increase in impervious surface since the infiltration stormwater system heats the hydrologic model, consistent with the allowable impervious surface for the lot. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the proposed amendment would require the applicant to post a bond, and if so, who would determine the amount of the bond. Michael Harvey said yes, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. He said the engineer for the property owner would set the bond amount. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are other fixed costs for the property owner, beyond the actual construction and the bond. Michael Harvey said the property owner would hire an engineer to develop and install the system, and pay annual maintenance costs. Michael Harvey referred to the example scenario and said if an engineer reports a cost of$25,000 to remove the impervious surface then the bond would also be $25,000. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the example scenario really includes a "system". Michael Harvey said the system in the example is the permeable concrete and it does require maintenance. Commissioner Price asked if this will affect cluster developments. Michael Harvey said it does not affect cluster developments. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there will be a regular inspection by County planning. Michael Harvey said yes, since this is part of the County's stormwater program. Commissioner Dorosin said this issue is a good example of why the Board needs to re- visit the public hearing process. He said there have been substantive changes, such as the requirement of a bond, that the public has not had a chance to comment on. Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts if another public hearing is necessary when such substantive changes have been made. John Roberts said if there is a major substantive change, the original public hearing can be voided. He said he is not sure if example rises to that level. He said, he too, shares Commissioner Dorosin's concerns about the County's public hearing process. Chair McKee asked if a $25,000 bond would actually cost $25,000 to the property owner. Michael Harvey said no, the cost of the bond is 110% of the cost of the system. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Burroughs, and Commissioner Price); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Rich) Motion Passed Commissioner Rich said she felt that the Board has let the public down when they are not allowed to come back and comment on changes. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with these concerns and said the Board is not giving the public a chance to comment on this and other issues.