Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members question floodplain, storage and impervious-coverage claims for Healy-related site
Summary
During review of a 17A warehouse and affiliated vehicle storage, the board pressed whether outdoor vehicle storage had been correctly categorized (storage vs. parking), whether prior variances validly cover the site, and how floodplain and impervious-surface figures (cited as ~78%) were calculated.
The board reviewed a site-plan amendment that affects a warehouse on 17A and substantial vehicle storage behind an existing dealership (referred to in discussion as Healy Motors/Healy Ford). Multiple members said ZBA issued variances for setbacks and impervious-surface coverage but expressed unease about how acreage and impervious percentages were computed and whether the existing uncovered vehicle inventory storage should be treated as parking or as storage (a distinction that changes code requirements for islands, plantings and screening).
Members raised floodplain and wetland issues, noting that some proposed development falls within a 100-foot stream setback and within mapped floodplain. Several speakers urged that any expansion or reclassification be accompanied by a clear retention/retention-pond plan and specific oil/water controls for repair and storage areas; a planning reviewer said the applicant told ZBA that impervious-surface coverage was pre-existing and that no additional impervious area would be added, but board members asked for explicit recalculation and parcel-merger consideration to avoid repeated variances.
The board did not take a vote. Members tasked staff to confirm the impervious-surface calculation, the boundaries of the floodplain, and whether an engineered stormwater-retention/quality-control plan exists for oil/chemical-laden runoff.
