Laserfiche WebLink
Item No.'s 6.2 - 6.d. <br /> PC: 11-5-92 <br /> MS-92-209, MS-92-208, <br /> MS-92-177, MS-92-190 <br /> • Use on-site drainage ponds. This alternative is not recommended because in general <br /> they are not perpetuated. Overtime as property changes ownership, subsequent owners <br /> do not understand the purpose of the drainage pond. The tendency is that they are filled <br /> in, and there is no provision for drainage at all- However, when terminal drainage is not <br /> available, on-site drainage may be the onty attemative. <br /> The consensus of the meeting is that there is no real easy or good solution to the problem. This <br /> area has existing drainage problems because of the type of soil that is in the area and also the <br /> lack of drainage facilities in the area. This problem will continue to exist whether or not <br /> development occurs in the area. It is therefore staff's consensus and recommendation that each <br /> proiect be handled on a case by case basis. <br /> All ,our of these Minor Subdivision applications are proposing natural drainage. Staff <br /> recommends on-site drainage ponds wherever terminal drainage is not available. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL CONSICERATONS: <br /> The Initial Studies that were prepared for these projects indicated that no significant, adverse <br /> environmental impacts would result from the projects. On that basis, Negative Declarations were <br /> prepared. In addition, Certificates of Fee Exemption with a Te Minimis Impact Finding,'which states that <br /> the projects could not have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, have been prepared. <br /> -13- <br />