Catholic Church/School update – hearing set for June 22nd/23rd
The pre-hearing conference took place on March 23rd and the Hearing Commisioner sent out a notice summarizing the issues discussed. In addition, this notice provided a timeline for the remainder of the process (the most important dates are the hearing: June 22nd and 23rd) [if you need a copy, let me know]
The pre-hearing conference was reasonably straight forward with the exception of a few issues around traffic. I felt the Hearing Commissioner did a good job of keeping the explanations simple and was generally helpful when we needed clarification. Most of the key issues we presented in the appeal are still on the table, with the exception of:
- Septic design – this is a Health Department issue. We can still discuss the general impact of the septic field on the environment.
- Lack of proper public community notification (basically dismissed as a non-issue)
- Traffic concurrency certificate challenge (subject to a motion for dismissal)
The Hearing Commissioner also pretty clearly stated that the current condition of the property (degraded buffers, existing impervious surface, etc) would greatly benefit the developer since that state is "grandfathered in" and any improvements they make (e.g. restoring buffers) count very positively on their application. Basically, he gave support to statements in the CUP decision like the one I had quoted before: "As stated previously, the majority of on-site wetland and stream buffers are in a severely degraded state consisting primarily of lawn, landscaping, and impervious surface. Consequently, although significant buffer reductions are proposed, the reductions will have minimal impacts on the functions of the existing buffers."
We clearly have an uphill battle in front of us, but I think it is reasonably positive that most of the issues we raised are still part of the appeal.
Our next steps:
1. We will have to respond to the motion for dismissal of the concurrency (traffic) issue mentioned above. DDES is also sending us some clarifying questions about a statement in our appeal involving the TMDL (phosphorus) for Cottage Lake.
2. Negotiations – representatives for the parish (Fr. Scott Connolly and Shauna Smith) have been very willing to discuss the issues in the appeal and have suggested that we may be able to resolve some of them outside the appeal process. I think this could be very positive and that we may be able to get some important concessions on some of the environmental issues. If we make progress with the negotiations, I will schedule another community meeting to discuss the possible results.
3. Preparing for the hearing – research: We are still doing research (traffic, storm water detention, buffers, etc). If you are interested in helping out, please let me know.
4. Preparing for the hearing – finding experts: The Hearing Commissioner made it clear that we need expert witnesses to support our arguments. In addition, we are considering the need for a lawyer. If you know of environmental or traffic experts, please let me know (we have some good leads, but additional ideas are welcome).
Thanks again for your support and feel free to contact me with any questions.
