DCPREZ-0000-07149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Once the road layout was chosen, different parcel configurations were tested for feasibility. These parcel configurations constitute Alternative A and Alternative B (proposed) in the enclosures. The only difference between the alternatives is the layout of parcels north of the access road. In Alternative B, only two parcels are proposed on the east side of the north access road, where four parcels exist in Alternative A. The reduction in parcels recognizes that much of the original four parcel layout would be undevelopable due to the 75-foot building setback from the wetland boundaries. Consequently, this area was consolidated into two parcels useful for light industry. Both alternatives propose two conservation areas subject to a permanent wetland easement, and a storm water detention pond within the eastern radiused cul-de-sac. In Alternative A, the conservation areas total 9.87 acres containing 7.93 acres of wetland, while the proposed Alternative B has 11.05 acres with 8.83 wetland acres. Significant environmental benefits are realized by the proposed Alternative B over Alternative A. By including the 0.9 acres of wetland subdivided in Alternative A, this area is protected from future development. As this part of wetland 2 contains large silver maples and has higher ecological value than many other wetland areas (see Section 3), functions and aesthetics are preserved which are out of proportion to the additional conservation area. Included in the proposed alternative is the removal of demolition waste from between the areas in Wetland Area 2 shown in the enclosures. D. No Action Alternative With the No Action alternative, the Carley family would sustain an annual financial loss on the parcel because subdivision, sale and development would not occur, but continue to be assessed on the existing property value. While a small portion outside of the existing wetlands could be developed for their own business uses, this action would not yield a significant financial return without a complete development of the infrastructure and ongoing sales of land in excess of their own needs. Likewise, in the absence of significant development, the increased county tax revenues otherwise available due to the increased commercial value would not be assessed. Without development, no adverse wetland impacts would occur, but permanent wetland easements would not be established. All demolition wastes would remain in place and wetlands would continue to function as passive storm water retention areas. The existing woodland matrix of silver maple, elm, oak, and cottonwood would continue to function together as cover and nesting habitat for mammals and songbirds. 2. Construction and Impact Management A. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts Wetland avoidance was largely accomplished during the analysis of alternatives for subdivision and road access. The proposed Alternative B represents the best possible wetland avoidance Mead&Hunt C236A002\C236-97A\12-97 3