 |
| Mr. Vaucher of Stop-18-Homes testifies at 9/11/2012 meeting.. |
What appeared at first to be a slam-dunk proposal to significantly
alter the topography of a 37-acre parcel of land bounded by Foothill Road to
the south, Twin Oaks Road to the west, and Steele Gap Road to the east, has met
with organized citizens’ opposition represented by legal counsel, Jeffrey J.
Brookner, Esq., and Thonet Associates Inc., an environmental planning and engineering
design consultant firm.
Both have been retained by Stop-18-Homes, a group of residents living either nearby or contiguous
to the planned development site.
An extensive 50-page report released this week by
Thonet Associates of Pittstown, NJ, presents a detailed assessment of the
alleged inability of this 37-acre mountain-side property to absorb and to
survive the impact of what the report claims would be significant environmental
damage that would occur should the site be developed as proposed by the
applicant.
Thonet’s report consistently makes a case for the
alleged insufficiency of the applicant’s site design plan to adequately consider
the full impact of downhill water flows to the site, to adjacent and
non-contiguous area, as well as to the wetlands contained within the site.
 |
| Plng. Brd. member Mrs, Kane ponders a point at the meeting. |
Thonet challenges and refutes part of the applicant’s
methodology, writing that “All of the
project’s storm water management calculations are wrong . . . [that] those calculations provide no valid basis
for concluding that the subject project will not increase peak-[level] flows from the [37-acre] site.”
Thonet continues with an admonition that, “The applicant should revise the project’s storm
water management calculations to correct for the errors and deficiencies
contained in those calculations . . .”
This 50-page document is highly detailed and technical
in nature, but the issues and recommendations contained within it are quite
understandable to a serious and patient reader.
It is a point-by-point analysis which, not infrequently,
serves as a rebuttal to the sufficiency of the applicant’s proposal as it currently
sits before the Bridgewater Township Planning Board.
Its findings address the 37-acre proposed development
site’s topography, soils and geology, drainage patterns and surface hydrology,
swales, berms, ground water hydrology, surface and ground water quality,
evidence of a former farm dump area on the site, overall site disturbance, the
nature and adequacy of proposed retention basins (the report reclassifies them
as “dams”), and the impact of
construction activity to the site.
 |
| Mr. Lang, standing at left, confers with his counsel & other expert. |
In one section of the report, Mr. Thonet alleges that
“Simply put, all of the applicant’s storm
water management calculations are wrong.”
Pretty strong stuff!
In his closing comments, this environmental planning
and engineering design consultant hired by Stop-18-Homes
offers two alternatives to the plan now before the Bridgewater Planning Board:
“Acquisition of
the property for open space,” citing as authority provisions of the
Bridgewater Township Open Space and Recreation Plan; or “Development of fewer lots” on the periphery of the site, thus not
disturbing its interior.
The subsequent nine conclusions and recommendations
with which Mr. Thonet ends his report are wholly consistent with what has
already been discussed in this post.
I hope that you have not found this writing too long or
boring; but, of its very nature, a subject like this can get very “wonky.”
Sometimes, “wonky” is what’s necessary to clear the
air, calm the emotions, and bring some common sense into a situation that may
not be getting the consideration that the Bridgewater Township Master Plan
calls for.
(Click on any image for an enhanced
view.)
No comments:
Post a Comment