Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer seeks clearer fence, planting and consultant requirements for Great Pasture Road project
Summary
At the Oct. 8 meeting of the Environmental Impact Commission, engineer Steve Sullivan pressed staff and commissioners to clarify permit conditions for Great Pasture Road, including a permanent western fence, additional planting locations and whether the term “qualified environmental consultant” covers erosion and soil contamination.
Steve Sullivan, a professional engineer with CCA Engineers, urged the Environmental Impact Commission on Oct. 8 to clarify several permit conditions tied to regulated activity 124515 for the Great Pasture Road project.
"We don't need it on the North," Sullivan said when discussing the staff-recommended fences, arguing the permanent fence should be placed on the western construction limit and that a separate condition should address the planting/bond estimate. Sullivan also asked that the planting requirement be phrased to allow field determination of specific plant locations and requested confirmation that the "qualified environmental consultant" referenced by staff would address both erosion control and soil-contamination concerns.
Elizabeth Falk, a commission member, echoed the need for clarity in the written conditions. "Permanent fence along the western construction line should be condition number 3," Falk said, and she stressed that additional plantings should be continuous along the top of the slope between Flats 24 and 32 so the planting acts as a permanent buffer.
The engineering exchange covered drainage details as well: a commissioner raised concerns about riprap/scour holes and the project's design for storms up to a 25-year event; Sullivan said outlets were intentionally spread to reduce concentrated scour and offered alternatives (for example, a narrow longitudinal trench to spread out discharge) and agreed to revise the steep outlet detail to reduce the risk of gully formation.
The commission did not record a final vote on 124515 during the meeting; staff and the engineer discussed changes to be reflected in the permit conditions and field plans. Staff also requested that planting plans and demarcation details be submitted for review and approval before construction begins, and asked that planting counts and cost estimates be included so any required bonding can be established.
Why this matters: the exact wording and numbering of permit conditions determine where permanent features like fences will be placed, how mitigation plantings are counted and bonded, and who is responsible for site oversight during construction — all of which affect how runoff and wetland fringes are protected during and after construction.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the clarifications discussed — fence placement, continuous planting locations and the consultant scope — into revised permit language and follow up with the applicant and the commission.
