Planning Board agenda 060519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T Kim Piracci: I would like to make a little speech to the Planning Board. I know there’s a question of legality, but I also 659 have a conscious. If there’s one thing I’m conversant on is climate mitigation. This development is everything that 660 doesn’t address what we need addressed moving forward. Any language, that I have in quotes “properly protect the 661 environment” are hollow words. This area except for that original homestead area is completely wooded and it’s the 662 very definition of urban sprawl. One inch of rain in 24 hours is something in the past year we’ve probably gotten once 663 a week or more. Who is going to get hurt from that? Are people going to start being hurt? Mr. Smith admitted that 664 the intersection will be dangerous, not his word, mine, but I think his word was difficult. Turning left out of that 665 development, not so good. There’s no affordable housing and that’s for reasons beyond our discussion, but it’s not 666 good. It’s not a good thing to be building so much expensive housing in this one area without building the other kind 667 of housing. There’s no mention of green building strategies of any kind, lead building or solar panels. I’m going to 668 vote no on this. 669 670 Hunter Spitzer: Michael, you said that we could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they 671 investigate increasing the one inch in 24 hours rainfall requirement that they also be required to mitigate a more 672 extreme event. How would be go about making such a request? 673 674 Michael Harvey: I think you would do it after you have made some sort of motion (on this application). The motion 675 can be made that the County Commissioners be asked to initiate a study on the impacts of increasing the stormwater 676 design threshold for developments. I’m going to remind you that that’s not just new development that’s any existing 677 property owner who exceeds the established thresholds would then have to abide by that standard. Be forewarned 678 of some of the issues that we’re going to be bringing back to you in terms of the pros and cons because as I 679 indicated there’s opportunities and constraints, but I think that once you’ve concluded action on this particular project, 680 someone can make a motion to ask the County Commissioners to direct staff to begin a comprehensive assessment 681 of additional stormwater opportunities.682 683 Patrick Mallett: If you start evaluating the existing wells around the perimeter and you find things that would cause 684 them to have to be modified, these would have to be enforced. You could be looking at wells that are condemned. I 685 would also reiterate his analogy with regard to the difference in standards over time. 686 687 Zelda Lockhart: As a person who is being spoken about who might therefore be further impacted. If my well is 688 inspected now and then hypothetically needs work, that’s still a win, win for everybody. Let’s say that the drinking 689 water isn’t as great as I think it is. If the developer has to pay for that to see the condition of my well, and they find 690 out it’s not in as great condition as they thought, I don’t lose. I’m good with that. 691 692 David Blankfard: So you would have to pay for your own well to be upgraded if found deficient. 693 694 Zelda Lockhart: If it was found deficient. I think that argument is being put over as almost a shadow over the 695 concern that I have. That is not a concern. So, if I understand what Michael is saying, he is saying that if there was 696 something put in place to assure that the development, the construction of the development, and the digging of the 697 wells in some way condemned my well, that that’s not something similar as to who could know what condemned my 698 well. I think that’s what the argument is. That doesn’t take away my concern. If I have my tap on today and then 699 tomorrow begins the pounding into the wells, I think it is a pretty good legal argument that there’s a cause and effect. 700 The aquafers don’t just run one day and go dry the next. What I’m saying is that that secondary argument of now 701 you wouldn’t want those citizens to have to go paying for better drinking water now; would you? That’s a shadow on 702 top of the issue that I’m raising. 703 704 Kim Piracci: I’m kind of agreeing with her. I was thinking, there’s a downside to knowing if I have bad water? If I had 705 bad water I would want to know about it. 706 707 Patrick Mallett: What I’m saying is that Michael and Phil and the discussion last month pointed out that part of that 708 investigation could reveal deficiencies that have to be resolved. 709 710 Kim Piracci: And what’s the downside of that? 711 712 17