preserve-harmony.org
Unanswered Questions from the Harmony Township Environmental Commission
The Township Environmental Commission has participated in the process by which the Land Use Board reviews the Centex application (including an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS). There are still several questions raised by the Environmental Commission in these proceedings that Centex has not answered. From a Commission letter dated September 1, here is the list:
1) When will the applicant estimate the resident population, working population and visitor population of the proposed development, as required by ordinance 148-33A?
2) When will the applicant address the compatibility or incompatibility of the proposed project in relation to the master plans of the adjacent communities (White, Lopatcong and Franklin), as required by ordinance 148-33A?
3) When will the applicant describe the subsurface water conditions on the site (depth to groundwater and water supply capabilities), and provide the location, drilling log, depth, and water quality for all existing wells on-site and within ½ mile of the site, as required by ordinance 148-33(B)(6)? Our notes from the most recent Land Use Board hearing (August 19, 2004) show that when Mr. Mace inquired about the on-site well possibly being used to supply water to the recently re-designed stormwater detention basins/created wetland, there was some confusion among the applicants representatives, the Dowel Associate representative, and the site plan designers (Mr. Heggins and Mr. Dixon) as to whether the on-site well actually existed, where it was located, and what quantity of water it might yield. This point lucidly shows that the applicant has not provided “reasonable environmental full disclosure.”
4) When will the applicant provide a map which shows the areal extent (in acres or square feet) of each class of slopes that occur on the site, as required by ordinance 148-33(B)(2)(b)?
5) When will the applicant provide a map that shows the location of major vegetative groupings such as woodlands, open fields and wetlands, that also shows the forest types, as required by ordinance 148-33(B)(4)?
6) On 2/19/04, Mr. Dixon testified that water from Basin #3 will flow into a swale along River Road, and eventually flow under River Road in an existing pipe. He did not know the size of the existing pipe, where the pipe in question was located, nor did he know which property on the other side of River Road the water would be directed onto. What is the size of the existing pipe? Will it be able to accommodate the volume of flow from Basin 3 that will be sent off-site during the various “design storms” that are typically calculated, or will it be replaced with a larger pipe? Where will all of this water go after it leaves the pipe?
7) Is the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program’s wetland Letter of Interpretation for this site still valid?
8) How has the applicant minimized impervious surfaces in the latest (final???) design compared to the initial site plan? What is the difference in impervious surfaces between the two designs?
9) What is the groundwater recharge capability of the site in its current (undeveloped) state? This information is required by ordinance 148-33(B)(6), but was never provided (see question 3 above), The question was asked by the Township’s geological consultant (Mr. Gettchel) at the August 19, 2004 hearing. The applicant did not answer the question, and later stated that their testimony was concluded.
10) What will the modeled groundwater recharge of the site be after the development is constructed?
11, 12 and 13) How will the addition of approximately 2.835 million gallons of treated wastewater per month every month after the development is completed affect the subsurface geology on and adjacent to the site (i.e., the formation of sinkholes)? How will it affect the quality (potability) of the groundwater and the flow of the groundwater? How will wells within ½ mile of the site be affected?
14) How many acres of Prime Farmland Soils will be removed from production as a result of this development?
15) Exactly how do the minimal design changes that were presented at the 6/17/04 and 8/19/04 Land Use Board hearings meet the new stormwater regulations??? Water is still being sent off-site rather than being recharged into the ground.
16) At the August 19, 2004 Land Use Board hearing, we requested that a wetland planting plan for the revised stormwater/wetland basin be provided to the HTEC for review and comment. Has this been received?
17) What, if any, are the applicants plans for preserving the historic lime kiln that exists on the property?
To see a facsimile of the complete letter: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4
