20070756 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20070706

Re: 070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
Subject: Re: 070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Ju12007 15:46:33 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
It will probably get done faster if you write it
any other than DOT stuff and bulkhead/shoreline
do anytime you want me to.)
thanks, and have a great weekend.
K
Ian McMillan wrote:
Ken Averitte wrote:
. It's been a while since I've done
stabilization (which I'll be glad to
Ian,
I don't think I know Virginia Raber ( I think that name is right).
Anyway, she must have reviewed the latest response to the subject
application.
I looked over what she sent me and I have been to the site. Her question
about the "10 ft. wide" stream is a very reasonable question. The "stream" I
looked at with Krissina Newcomb was much less than 10 ft. wide, more like 3
or 4 (or less), and was something that appears to have been excavated
sometime in the past. Probably was once the natural drain in the landscape
and dug out to provide better drainage. The application has it down as an
intermittent stream. Chad and I concluded that it was more likely an ephemeral
drain, so the IP issue is not a problem.
All things considered, I see no reason to hold this any longer. They are
apparently putting some type of deed restrictions per a COE requirement. If
that is not the case, then we should certainly put some condition in the 401
requiring a conservation easement or protective covenant on all remaining
wetlands on the lots and in the balance of the subdivision.
Are you going to send this one out of your office?
thanks
Ken
You tell me. I can write it or you. - Ian
1 of 1 7/10/2007 3:03 PM

070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
Subject: 070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Ju12007 15:40:31 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Ian,
I don't think I know Virginia Raber ( I think that name is right).
Anyway, she must have reviewed the latest response to the subject application.
I looked over what she sent me and I have been to the site. Her question about the
"10 ft. wide" stream is a very reasonable question. The "stream" I looked at with
Krissina Newcomb was much less than 10 ft. wide, more like 3 or 4 (or less), and
was something that appears to have been excavated sometime in the past. Probably
was once the natural drain in the landscape and dug out to provide better drainage.
The application has it down as an intermittent stream. Chad and I concluded that it
was more likely an ephemeral drain, so the IP issue is not a problem.
All things considered, I see no reason to hold this any longer. They are apparently
putting some type of deed restrictions per a COE requirement. If that is not the
case, then we should certainly put some condition in the 401 requiring a
conservation easement or protective covenant on all remaining wetlands on the lots
and in the balance of the subdivision.
Are you going to send this one out of your office?
thanks
Ken
1 of 1 7/9/2007 5:08 PM

Re: 070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
Subject: Re: 070756, Arrowhead S/d, Cumberland co.
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Ju12007 15:46:33 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
It will probably get done faster if you write it. It's been a while since I've done
any other than DOT stuff and bulkhead/shoreline stabilization (which I'll be glad to
do anytime you want me to.)
thanks, and have a great weekend.
K
Ian McMillan wrote:
Ken Averitte wrote:
Ian,
I don't think I know Virginia Raber ( I think that name is right).
Anyway, she must have reviewed the latest response to the subject
application.
I looked over what she sent me and I have been to the site. Her question
about the "10 ft. wide" stream is a very reasonable question. The "stream" I
looked at with Krissina Newcomb was much less than 10 ft. wide, more like 3
or 4 (or less), and was something that appears to have been excavated
sometime in the past. Probably was once the natural drain in the landscape
and dug out to provide better drainage. The application has it down as an
intermittent stream. Chad and I concluded that it was more likely an ephemeral
drain, so the IP issue is not a problem.
All things considered, I see no reason to hold this any longer. They are
apparently putting some type of deed restrictions per a COE requirement. If
that is not the case, then we should certainly put some condition in the 401
requiring a conservation easement or protective covenant on all remaining
wetlands on the lots and in the balance of the subdivision.
Are you going to send this one out of your office?
thanks
Ken
You tell me. I can write it or you. - Ian
1 of 1 7/9/2007 5:08 PM