At the heart of the meeting was the ongoing debate regarding the stormwater management plan for the 160 Bedford Street project. Deb Keller, representing Maryland Engineers and Land Surveyors, highlighted several issues, including the expired Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) and the need for a new Notice of Intent (NOI). A peer review, possibly involving Brad Holmes from Environmental Consulting and Restoration, was suggested to ensure precision in delineating wetland boundaries, as outdated flags and unclear plans had led to confusion and potential regulatory non-compliance.

The commission scrutinized the grading and drainage plans, which lacked clarity regarding the differentiation of areas designated for reclaimed asphalt versus those intended for landscaping. This ambiguity, compounded by a seemingly disconnected septic system, raised concerns about the adequacy of the stormwater management design, particularly given the potential for pollutant loads if the property was utilized for truck storage or similar activities. The members emphasized the importance of adhering to stormwater management standards, which had not been satisfactorily addressed in the submitted plans.

Technical discussions revealed significant flaws in the stormwater drainage model, specifically a discrepancy in the trench drain’s reported peak height compared to the site elevation. Such errors necessitated a review to rectify the stormwater management strategy. Additionally, the design of a “pocket wetland” at the rear of the site was critiqued, with calls for additional test pits to verify groundwater interactions before construction could proceed.

Further complicating matters, the commission grappled with the introduction of a “pig blanket” for soil remediation, a method new to the involved parties. The positioning and securing of the pig blanket were questioned, with the risk of exacerbating existing flooding issues discussed if improperly implemented. The commission stressed the importance of consulting with manufacturers and reviewing previous use cases to ensure effective treatment.

Beyond technical concerns, the meeting also addressed broader regulatory challenges. A resident, Tim, voiced his frustrations regarding unapproved modifications to his property and surrounding areas, which had led to significant flooding and environmental disturbances. His testimony highlighted the use of “dirty fill” and the discovery of arsenic and heavy metals, raising questions about oversight and the adequacy of local enforcement measures.

Tim’s situation spotlighted the limitations of the commission’s enforcement capabilities, as they discussed involving the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to address potential violations. Despite previous discussions about penalties for non-compliance, Tim argued that effective enforcement had not been realized, further complicating the commission’s efforts to maintain environmental integrity.

The meeting also delved into procedural clarifications regarding erosion control methods and tree removal policies. The commission acknowledged the need for specificity in erosion control techniques, such as using silt fences in areas near ponds, to enhance regulatory clarity. Furthermore, the removal of a controversial pine tree in Churchill Shores was debated, with concerns about its potential impact on endangered species if left in situ after removal.

As the meeting concluded, logistical matters were addressed, including signing off on compliance documents and scheduling future public hearings for ongoing projects. The commission also touched on internal matters, such as the resignation of a long-serving member due to health issues and the potential recruitment of a new candidate.