Appl. #01-45P
Attorney Michael Ziska came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained that since the last meeting there have been revisions submitted. Attorney Ziska also introduced the individuals that would be presenting information to the Commission.
Mr. Wilson Alford, Jr. came before the Commission to review engineering aspects and changes made to this proposal from the previous meeting. Mr. Alford explained the changes that have taken place:
Phase II
1) The detention basin has been changed.
2) Plantings around the detention basin.
3) Lot #9, 10 and 11 will have a conservation easement in the rear of the lots.
4) Lot #10 has had the design of the house shortened.
Phase I
Storm drainage system has been changed.
Commissioner Phillips questioned whether the cul-de-sac on phase I could be altered in order to move lot #5 away from the pond and the wetland corridor. It was felt this could be a prudent and feasible alternative for this plan. Commission members asked the applicant to look into this further and it will be discussed at the next meeting.
Commissioner Kelly asked about the 4' drop of the level spreader and if adjustments would be necessary.
A discussion involving no net increase in net flow throughout the overall project was held. There was concern if Phase II did not get constructed if there would be an increase in net flow. Attorney Ziska informed the Commission that although it was necessary for Planning & Zoning to look at each Phase separately, it is the applicant's intention to have Phase II presented at the next Planning & Zoning meeting and then both Phases will be joined together as one application. Mr. Alford stated that if Phase II does not get approved, Phase I would not get constructed.
Commissioner Phillips suggested that lot #9, 10 or 11 be eliminated in order to bring the back yards further from the wetlands then they are presently. Mr. Alford responded that there would be an economic problem in doing that and also there would be no significant reduction in the impact.
Mr. George Logan explained that the elimination of one lot would not have a significant difference on this area, there would be a very marginal functional value. Mr. Logan added that 75% of the Elm will have to be eliminated in that area because they are diseased.
Commission members discussed at length ways to give lot #10 more space. It was eventually decided to have the applicant take a closer look at that area's design to see if there are any alternatives available and bring any findings back to the Commission at the next schedule meeting.
Jeff stated he would like more information addressing the erosion and sedimentation measures on Phase II because there are not adequate measures present. He would also like the applicant to investigate the possibility of moving the storm drain pipe from the cul-de-sac on phase I south, away from the stone wall to preserve the integrity of the vegetation along the wall.
Commissioner Phillips suggested the use of temporary berms to detain water temporarily during construction.
Chairperson Warren would like something placed at the edge of the conservation easement so there will be no disturbances during construction. Jeff felt the markers placed at previous locations could be used. The Commission agreed upon the markers and felt the applicant should be required to have the markers placed up prior to a building permit being issued
Commissioner Kelly expressed concern regarding the wildlife in the area and thought enhancing the edge plantings away from human contact would be a good idea. Commissioner Kelly also requested a map of the soils found at the site. She explained she would like to especially understand the soils on lot #
Commissioner Wasik informed the applicant that she would like prudent and feasible alternatives looked at more carefully and have a discussion regarding this matter at the next scheduled meeting.
Public
1) Mr. David Viar came before the Commission to discuss his concerns with this application, (Attachment D). The Commission discussed each concern that Mr. Viar has.
2) Mr. Claude Mercier came before the commission and expressed his concerns with this proposal. He felt Phase II could be shifted in order to bring all the houses further from the wetlands and regulated area. Mr. Mercier is also concerned with the tree line in the rear of lot #
3) Mr. David Guay felt the subdivision as presented should not be changed because he feels there was a lot of thought and work put into the design presented.
4) Mr. Ian Veitzer feels the plan as presented would have significant impacts to the wetlands and wildlife in that area. Mr. Veitzer also felt the shifting of the subdivision is a good idea.
The public hearing was continued until the January 23, 2002 meeting.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted
___________________________ ________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary Date Approved
