Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe wetlands commission continues hearing on Monro Turnpike excavator yard; water tests and more plantings ordered
Summary
The Monroe Inland Wetland Commission continued the public hearing on a proposed excavator/contracting facility at Monro Turnpike, asking for pending water-sample results, additional plantings and clarified erosion controls. The commission granted an extension and set the next hearing for July 22.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Don Smith Jr., the professional engineer representing the applicant for the Monro Turnpike project, told the Monroe Inland Wetland Commission on June 10 that water samples contracted to a LEP were collected last week but results were not yet available. “We did execute that contract with the LEP for water samples. The water samples were taken a week ago Monday,” Smith said, asking the commission to await the laboratory results before a final decision.
Why it matters: The Monro Turnpike proposal — a construction and storage yard for excavators and related equipment — has been treated as a high‑interest public hearing because commissioners and neighbors say it could alter stormwater flows, reduce riparian buffer, and require removal of mature trees. The commission focused on three technical items: how much retaining‑wall offset from the wetlands is feasible, costs and tradeoffs tied to different offsets, and whether additional plantings can mitigate riparian impacts.
Smith presented alternative wall/offset plans and cost estimates, saying a 10–12 foot offset yields roughly 23,000 square feet of storage at an estimated construction cost “just under $680,000,” which equals about $29 per square foot of storage. He told the commission that moving the wall to a 30‑foot offset raised construction costs by about $150,000 (a roughly 22% increase) while reducing the storage area, producing a higher unit cost of about $43 per square foot. He also explained the applicant declines to pave an 85– to 105‑foot lower section of Old Webb Road because doing so would create 1,275–2,575 square feet of additional impervious surface that cannot be connected to the proposed stormwater management system and would increase unmitigated peak flow to the adjacent unnamed stream.
Commissioners pressed two persistent concerns: trees and buffer width. One commissioner asked Smith to quantify tree losses associated with the narrower setback; Smith acknowledged that many large trees identified as >24 inches in diameter would still be removed even under the 10–12 foot offset, though the 30‑foot option retained more. Commissioners repeatedly asked for more planting along the bank and for the project’s wetland biologist to approve any substitutions of species and sizes. “If we could get some more trees in there, I think that will help,” a commissioner said.
Neighbors took the microphone during the public comment period. Paula Jelly (290 Cottage Street) urged the commission to require the paving of the gravel extension road that serves some abutters: “Please require 1603 Monroe Turnpike’s property owner to pave the remainder of the access road to 1609 Monroe Turnpike’s driveway,” she said, describing ruts and potholes that she said made the road hazardous. William Wy (1609 Monroe Turnpike) asked how the applicant would protect motorists from a 6–8 foot drop from the roadway to the proposed storage area, requesting a guardrail or curb near a short segment where the wall will be high: “That’s where our concern is — how will there be a railing or anything on the edge of the driveway between Old Webb Road and the top of the wall?” Wy asked.
Action and next steps: The commission generally signaled support for a 12‑foot offset as a compromise but requested the applicant revise the plans to show more plantings near the wall and submit the pending LEP water‑sample results and any flood mapping references. The commission continued the public hearing to July 22 and granted the applicant a 30‑day extension to July 25 if needed. The commission also asked staff to coordinate with the wetland biologist to verify planting sizes and potential substitutions.
What remains unresolved: Final decisions hinge on laboratory water results, the wetland scientist’s review of plant substitutions, and a revised full plan set that incorporates the requested additional plantings and any guardrail/curb details for the short, steep section of driveway near the storage pad.

