Technical Advisory Committee 2005 Technical Advisory Committee 2005
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Advisory Committee 2005 Technical Advisory Committee 2005 Table of Contents January 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m...................................................................................................................................1 February 2, 2005, 9:00 a.m...............................................................................................................................63 March 2, 2005, 9:00 a.m...................................................................................................................................82 April 6, 2005, 9:00 a.m....................................................................................................................................124 May 4, 2005, 9:00 a.m.....................................................................................................................................163 June 1, 2005, 9:00 a.m.....................................................................................................................................189 July 6, 2005......................................................................................................................................................238 August 3, 2005.................................................................................................................................................272 September 7, 2005, 9:00 a.m..........................................................................................................................324 October 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m...............................................................................................................................388 November 2, 2005, 9:00 a.m...........................................................................................................................449 December 7, 2005, 9:00 a.m...........................................................................................................................487 i January 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m. Technical Advisory Committee PRESENT: DiGiacomo, Funk, Latham, Mandras, Markwardt, Moore, Orr, Ouano, Roop, Woodhull and Jones ABSENT: Ancel, Carter and Davis Mr. DiGiacomo stated that during the interim of the Citizens Representative seat being filled comments may be sent to the OPZ. Comments were received from Owen Throne on the W. Harris Construction and MSM Investments, LLC projects which will be read when the project is reviewed. 1. Tollen Van Stan and Warren Harris presented W. Harris Construction, Inc, Barksdale Road, Concept Plat, Ramesh C. Batta Associates, PA, Fourth Election District Mr. Van Stan stated this project will connect to public sewer once it becomes available. The plans have been revised in the hope of maximizing the lots. Mr. Funk provided the applicant with a copy of the Soil Conservation Report stating the area consists of hydric soils that poorly drain that area and rate very limited for homes with, or without basements. Mr. Woodhull of DPW stated that this property is outside of the Master Water & Sewer Plan (MWSP) coverage area. Therefore the applicant will need to request an amendment to the MWSP Plan. This is a public process involving hearings before the Planning Commission and the ultimate decision, to be made by the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County. If this site is brought into the Master Water & Sewer Master Plan both sewer and water allocations must be requested from DPW. January 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m. 1 Technical Advisory Committee 2005 No water or sewer allocation is available to this site at this time. The ability of the existing water distribution system, together with the proposed extensions, to provide adequate fire flow and pressure must be demonstrated through an update to the Engineering Report of Meadow View – Highlands Water System Analysis prepared by Gregg, Miles, & Buhr, LLC in October 2004. A copy of this report may be obtained from the CCDPW. Mr. Woodhull asked if any consideration had been given as to where the on-site sanitary sewer system would tie into the existing Highlands WWTP. Mr. Van Stan replied between Lots 44 and 45. This would be part of the Aston Pointe sewer line. Mr. Woodhull stated any sanitary sewer lines run outside of County ROW must be ductile iron and located in a utility easement of sufficient width to allow access. A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, Water Distribution Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and/or Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”) The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (“No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.”) General Note #3 located on the plat is not required on the plat. If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance. Any and/or all structures, such as dwellings, outbuildings, driveways, etc., on down-gradient properties so impacted must be identified on the SWM Plans. The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the County’s SWM Ordinance. This analysis must include the culvert under Barksdale Road. Special care must be given to the design if a concentration of runoff will result from the SWM facilities. January 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m. 2 Technical Advisory Committee 2005 The Lot Grading Plan and SWM Plan must address how the conveyance of drainage from the proposed road will be handled. The filling of the wetland identified on Lot 28 must be accomplished so as to address any potential adverse impact on the dwelling constructed thereon. If SWM structural BMPs are required for this site, they must be provided for within Common Open Space (COS). Access must be provided to each SWM facility on site. All conveyance and access easements must be identified on the Final Plat. The standard easement width is 20’ however they may need to be wider depending on the type of conveyance and/or the combination of access and conveyance that is incorporated. Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval. Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owner’s expense. Sight distance measurements will be required at the intersection of the proposed road and Barksdale Road. The centerline of the proposed entrance location must be marked in the field. The entrance geometry is of concern to DPW and must comply with the appropriate sections of the Road Code. In particular, Section 3.07 b. 4, which is Intersection Angles, states that intersections should be preferably 900 but shall not be less than 700. Justification for angles other than 900 must be made to the satisfaction of the Department. The Department wants to see the entrance geometry prior to Preliminary Plat submittal. The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code requires that Barksdale Road be upgraded to Minor Collector road standard for 100’ either side of the proposed entrance. January 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m. 3 Technical Advisory Committee 2005 The applicant must conduct a Category 3 Protocol road condition survey along Barksdale Road from its intersection with Appleton Road to its intersection with Valley Road. The Department may require the applicant to perform off-site upgrades to Barksdale Road based on the findings of this condition survey. Mr. Woodhull asked if the applicant had had any discussions with any of the adjacent property owners you propose connectivity with. Mr. Van Stan replied no. Mr. Woodhull stated this Department is aware of a conceptual layout for the Walter & Florence Barczewski property and it does not reflect tying into this site. The Department strongly recommends that if connectivity is pursued the Developer discuss the issue with each of the impacted adjacent owners. With 45 lots proposed the access road would normally qualify as a “Minor Road” classification. Mr. DiGiacomo stated a draft of the most conceptual proposal had been shared with the DPW by Barczewski, but had not been presented to TAC. Mr. Woodhull stated because of the likely connectivity with adjacent properties the access road must be classified as a “Minor Collector” at a minimum. Unless the Planning Commission approves connectivity to the Barczewski property, the Catholic Diocese Foundation Property, and/or the Land of the Cecil County BOCC property the road stubs serving Lots 4-9 and Lots 21-26 must be terminated as cul-de-sacs, per the Road Code, and the stub to the Lands of Barczewski eliminated completely. The Department would entertain a Road Code Variance to the size