This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Engineer Discusses Development's Potential Impact on Storm Water Management

The engineer for the project answered questions from Chatham Township residents about what impact a proposed housing development could have on storm water management.

The public cross-examination of the engineer for a housing development proposal in Chatham Township continued during the township’s planning board meeting Monday night.

The hearing for the proposal, which constitutes development in seven lots around Ormont Avenue, Longview Avenue, Mountainside Drive and River Road, began at the board’s last meeting on June 20.

However, detailed cross-examination of the witness by the board and Steven Schaffer, attorney for developer Fenix-Chatham, had given the public few minutes to ask questions.

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

During the meeting, Rob Moschello, engineer with Gladstone Design, answered most of the questions about the proposed property and research executed but deferred to Schaffer for most of the legality questions.

Responsibility of Homeowner Association & Storm Water Management

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Schaffer had explained previously that owners of the eventual houses would have to sign into a homeowner association, meaning that they would be responsible for, among other things, paying a share of common expenses and maintaining all storm water management facilities on their properties.

Multiple residents of streets surrounding the proposed 6.3-acre development – lots 2, 6 and 8 in block 32 and lots 1, 14, 17 and 20 in block 33 – questioned what the consequences would be for the members of the homeowner association if certain owners did not maintain their storm water drywells and infiltration trenches.

“The town will be granted a monitoring easement that will say that if the storm water system does not work because it is not being maintained by property owners, they have a right to inquire or step in and charge the owner of the property,” Schaffer said.

He also explained that an annual report will be completed by the homeowner association and submitted to the township.

Moschello explained that common frequency for checking on drywells and infiltration trenches is three to four times a year.

On the other end, current homeowners wonder what poor upkeep of the facilities means for them.

Lyn Francis, who lives at 75 Susan Dr., said she currently has no problems with excess water coming down the slope to her house but is concerned what might happen if a few bad winters have passed and association members have not maintained their storm water facilities.

“I understand that you hope people will maintain everything as they should, and I hope so too,” Francis said. “But hope is not always enough for the existing residents.”

Schaffer agreed that a problem could potentially arise if a new homeowner does something to alter the original plan; however, he said, that problem could hypothetically occur with any development.

“Can some property owner do something wacky that could ruin it for somebody else?” he said. “Yes, but not without recourse.”

Francis asked whether, in the case of logging a complaint against a homeowner, she would have to wait for the association to sort out the problem. Schaffer responded that she could choose to hire a lawyer or, if she doesn’t want to spend the money, hope the town “flexes its muscle” under the monitoring easement.

“I don’t know if that’s sufficient,” Francis said, “so how do I know if I’m happy with that?”

Mayor Nicole Hagner said that she and Bailey Brower, who both serve on the board and township committee, often hear complaints regarding various applications and strive to make sure all concerns are looked into.

Schaffer also repeated that, if the application is accepted and the development built, it will have received signoff from township engineer John Ruschke, whose office would be able to go in and inspect any maintenance problems.

David Goldfield, who lives at 75 Ormont Rd., said he already has runoff problems and wanted to know whether the proposed bioretention basin would cause any problems.

Moschello described the basin as a facility that is “dry 90 percent of the time.” He said it shouldn’t cause any problems because it “collects water when it rains but doesn’t hold a permanent pool of water over a long period of time.”

Further Discussion

The Planning Board still has witnesses they wish to hear from regarding the proposed development. Each witness can also be submitted to questions from the public.

Board member Jonathan Cohn, who led the meeting in place of President Lydia Chambers, said another unrelated application is scheduled to have its first reading at the next meeting on July 25.

Schaffer said that he will make sure an engineer and a representative who can discuss the environmental aspects of the proposal will be available for the meeting, so that the board may ask questions of him if the reading of the new application does not take up the entirety of the meeting.

However, board attorney William Robertson said that, since the new application will have its first reading that night, this development proposal might not be discussed again until August or later.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?