I’m grateful that Council member Brehm has proposed the Environmental Assessment Text Amendment.
I recall being surprised to learn that the city had no requirements in its ordinances for this kind of oversight when the Brickworks application process took place. Stella Sellner’s research indicated there were a variety of locations in the city that could contain contaminants from historic uses of the properties, but the city had no means to require developers to confirm or mitigate that contamination existed on properties they were proposing to develop.
The text amendment appears to be a welcome addition to the city code as written and I endorse most of the proposed language. However, I’m wondering: why are city projects exempted from the proposed amendment? I hope this will be addressed in the workshop this evening.
I fully support the Environmental Assessment Text Amendment. I would also suggest Two additional modifications to the Amendment.
—I suggest that the City be included in this process. I was greatly concerned a couple of years ago when the City placed a City gas/diesel fill up area on ground near a pond previously known to contain contaminants from Area B.
— I also have concerns about properties that are adjacent to contaminated areas. Currently, there is an approved development
that is currently being built that is across the fence from Area B. The Army currently monitors wells on the developer’s property. Some of the wells contain contamination TCE and PCE. The Army is working through the Federal process and with the developer to put vapor intrusion detection equipment in houses that are deemed to be too close to the contaminated wells.
This would be similar to radon detection equipment.
Maybe there are other adjacent areas that would be like these areas.
Council members and staff,
I’m grateful that Council member Brehm has proposed the Environmental Assessment Text Amendment.
I recall being surprised to learn that the city had no requirements in its ordinances for this kind of oversight when the Brickworks application process took place. Stella Sellner’s research indicated there were a variety of locations in the city that could contain contaminants from historic uses of the properties, but the city had no means to require developers to confirm or mitigate that contamination existed on properties they were proposing to develop.
The text amendment appears to be a welcome addition to the city code as written and I endorse most of the proposed language. However, I’m wondering: why are city projects exempted from the proposed amendment? I hope this will be addressed in the workshop this evening.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to comment.
Patrice Gallagher
Frederick
I fully support the Environmental Assessment Text Amendment. I would also suggest Two additional modifications to the Amendment.
—I suggest that the City be included in this process. I was greatly concerned a couple of years ago when the City placed a City gas/diesel fill up area on ground near a pond previously known to contain contaminants from Area B.
— I also have concerns about properties that are adjacent to contaminated areas. Currently, there is an approved development
that is currently being built that is across the fence from Area B. The Army currently monitors wells on the developer’s property. Some of the wells contain contamination TCE and PCE. The Army is working through the Federal process and with the developer to put vapor intrusion detection equipment in houses that are deemed to be too close to the contaminated wells.
This would be similar to radon detection equipment.
Maybe there are other adjacent areas that would be like these areas.
Roberta Huber
Maxwell Square
There may be similar issues with other properties