Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stream Encapsulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers decision on proposed encapsulation at 369 Ewing Drive pending state hydrologic rulings
Summary
Developers seeking to encapsulate a TDEC‑classified stream at 369 Ewing Drive were told to return with state permits and a stronger mitigation plan; the commission deferred the application to a later meeting pending TDEC determinations and ARAP/mitigation documentation.
The Metro Stormwater Management Commission deferred action on a developer request to encapsulate a conveyance at 369 Ewing Drive after commissioners said state hydrologic determinations and stronger mitigation documentation are needed.
David Abbey of Development Management Group and John Donaldson for Ice Cream Development LLC argued the conveyance is frequently dry, contains long‑standing man‑made walls and heavy illegal dumping, and poses public‑safety concerns. "Within a week after over half an inch of rain...it's completely bone dry," Abbey said while showing photos, and described repeated dumping events and deteriorating walls.
Staff and several commissioners flagged two TDEC hydrologic determinations in the record that classify the reach as a stream or place it at the stream threshold; commissioners emphasized that when the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) has called a reach a stream, Metro typically treats it as such. Staff said Metro prefers state and federal permits or at least official correspondence from TDEC before taking final action on an encapsulation request.
Commissioners also said mitigation plans presented were not sufficiently detailed and that stream encapsulation — which can permanently alter water quality and habitat — is disfavored absent strong justification and state approvals. Multiple commissioners recommended the applicant pursue or document an ARAP/state approval and return with finalized mitigation plans and clearer hydrologic records.
The applicant agreed to defer; the commission set a target for a future hearing and asked staff to coordinate with the applicant on the TDEC process and mitigation documentation. The case was rescheduled for a later meeting to allow the applicant time to obtain or document TDEC concurrence and to produce a robust mitigation plan.
