Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201200029 Review Comments Mitigation Plan 2012-04-23Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:01 PM To: 'Brian Smith'; 'rwrinc @earthlink.net' Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: Milliman Mitigation Plan Good afternoon, I have reviewed the latest submittal of the Milliman Mitigation Plan. It seems confusion still remains regarding the expectations for this application. My initial letter stated the disturbance to the stream buffer could not be authorized by county staff. The county's position was later modified in light of correspondence during previous subdivision applications highlighted in a meeting with the applicant and his consultants. In summary, the program authority would allow the buffer disturbance on the condition that analysis was done by the applicant to show that the FEMA floodplain map was likely in error. This was done and is successfully exhibited in the latest submittal; the stream buffer disturbance to construct this driveway is authorized on the condition that a mitigation plan is approved. However, such an analysis does not modify the floodplain map, which is a federally controlled document, nor does it modify the actual buffer line since the WPO buffer is tied directly to the edge of the FEMA floodplain. Therefore, the disturbed area of the stream buffer is equal to the amount shown in the original submittal: 6,600sf (assuming only a 10ft wide disturbance). Accordingly, the area that must be planted is at least 13,200sf. The planting plan provided by the applicant in mitigation area 1 is not acceptable. This was stated in the county's first review letter as well as in the meeting. Ornamental driveway plantings are not acceptable; the plantings will be required in the floodplain /buffer at the northeastern corner of the property. Plantings must be provided in such a way that mimic natural buffer features along protected waterways and wetlands. Alternatively, the county will accept the applicant fencing off an area in the buffer in the northeast corner of the site that is equal to 4 times the buffer disturbance, or 26,400 sf. The fencing of the wetland area adjacent to the driveway is not acceptable because it's not associated with Lickinghole Creek, which was our incorrect impression in the meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072