Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Waiver Chipotle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks stormwater-waiver for proposed Greenwood Chipotle; board asks for more technical data
Summary
A developer representative requested a waiver from Greenwood''s stormwater retention standards for a proposed Chipotle at Smith Valley and SR 135, citing reduced impervious area and planned separators; the board raised concerns about device depth, performance versus the ordinance''s Table 9 requirement, and long-term maintenance and deferred a final decision pending additional documentation.
Greg Barrett, representing the petitioner for a proposed Chipotle at Smith Valley and State Road 135, asked the Greenwood Stormwater Board on March 11 for a waiver from parts of the city''s stormwater-retention requirements. Barrett said the redevelopment will replace a mostly asphalt parking lot with landscaping and will connect to an existing dry detention system, and he proposed adding a trash separator and oil-absorbent device to capture solids and hydrocarbons.
The request focused on a specific provision the packet labeled "Table 9," which Barrett said calls for an 80% total solids removal using an NJDEP-certified device. Barrett told the board that because the site already drains to a preexisting dry detention system and will reduce impervious area, the waiver is justified; he said the large, certified devices that meet the 80% standard cannot physically fit at the available invert depth on the site and that the alternatives under consideration are less deep and less costly.
"We're connecting into a pre-developed stormwater system," Barrett said. "We can only fit about six or seven feet of invert. Two of the three machines that meet the requirements require at least nine-and-a-half feet of invert, so we already have an issue there." (Greg Barrett, representative for the petitioner)
Board members and staff pressed the petitioner's team for specifics. Superintendent (S3) and Committee member (S2) questioned whether the proposed separators meet the ordinance's performance standards and raised maintenance and operability concerns. S3 noted he reviewed manufacturer materials and found the required operational and maintenance details incomplete in the packet.
"We would want the operation and maintenance manual updated when it may be opened," S3 said, adding that the board would expect clearer water-quality numbers and maintenance schedules before granting a waiver. (Superintendent, S3)
S2 asked for numerical comparisons and suggested Commonwealth (the board's outside reviewer) review the device tests and site elevations. Board members also noted the owner's commitment to rehabilitate a dry detention pond on the adjacent property and requested that commitment be documented.
Barrett said the petitioner has sought quotes for pond rehabilitation and will provide additional documentation. He also said that some tested separators (one referenced as Arcadia in the packet) showed high capture in test conditions, but he acknowledged the physical constraints and potential cost implications if a full certified device were required.
After extended discussion about invert depth, device sizing, maintenance burden and the need for clearer water-quality numbers, the board moved to defer final action and asked the petitioner to supply: (1) a site-specific comparison of impervious-area change and estimated water-quality improvement; (2) the operation and maintenance manual(s) for the proposed BMP(s) updated to address frequency and labor for cleaning; and (3) a written plan or agreement showing the property owner's commitment to rehabilitate the existing dry detention area. The board asked Commonwealth to review the device elevations and performance documentation prior to the next meeting.
The board did not vote to grant the waiver at the March 11 meeting; members said the item will return after the petitioner supplies the requested information and the outside review is completed.
The board took no formal enforcement action and did not approve the waiver; the petition remains under consideration pending staff and Commonwealth review.
