Petitioner: stream crossing, wetlands buffers addressed; prior disturbance approvals inform next step

During direct examination, civil engineer Sam Alomar described two streams, wetland areas and 100‑foot buffers that constrain buildable land on the roughly 18‑acre site. He testified the project respects wetland and stream buffers and that an approved necessary disturbance for a road crossing exists from prior approvals.

Alomar said the crossing is required "to get to the 2nd land mass, developable land mass to put those units." He testified the crossing had previously been approved as a necessary disturbance and acknowledged the petitioner may need to seek another necessary disturbance during the site development plan (SDP) review. On that point Alomar said he would be "very surprised" if the county denied a repeat approval given the project's history of approvals.

The DPZ technical staff report and its addendum had questioned certain setbacks and compatibility criteria earlier in the review, but DeCarlo and Alomar said DPZ's revised report concluded the proposed 40‑foot build‑to or BRL complies with the compatibility language when measured to adjacent residential uses rather than to RED bulk regulations. The hearing record notes wetlands, floodplain and stream buffers around the planned cluster of units; the SDP stage will contain the detailed mitigation and any permitting for the stream crossing.