Attachment B <br />that this on-site turnaround must provide for emergency vehicle access by being within a <br />temporary emergency access easement. The proposed turnaround area meets the dimension <br />requirements for a hammerhead. Referral comments from the Fire Marshal state no concern <br />with the turnaround. The permanent turnaround is anticipated at the end of Oakleigh Lane, <br />when properties to the-north further develop. As recommended previously at EC 9.8320(5)(a), <br />the applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the portion of the future turnaround that <br />would overlap the subject property. Based on these findings, the following condition of <br />approval is necessary: <br />Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall dedicate a temporary emergency <br />vehicle access easement over the on-site hammerhead and the access drive from <br />Oakleigh Lane, and show this easement on the final PUD plans. <br />Other public health concerns and necessary infrastructure improvements are otherwise <br />addressed with respect to approval criteria at EC 9.8320(5)(b) and (11)(b). Given the available <br />information, and based on the findings as set forth above, it is concluded that the proposed <br />development will comply with this criterion. <br />Opponent Arguments <br />The neighbors raised concerns about stormwater quantity and quality both during the October <br />2, 2013 hearing and in written comments during the open record period. PT-15. While not <br />expressly directed at compliance with EC 9.8320(6), some of the arguments could be construed <br />to invoke that section. The primary concerns were that untreated stormwater might be <br />discharged and that the quantity of stormwater likely to be generated could not be adequately <br />managed on-site. Rick Rubin submitted information on precipitation and calculations on the <br />size of a theoretical cistern that might be needed to accommodate that volume of water. PT- <br />15. <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(6) and adopts those <br />findings by this reference. <br />The applicant submitted an October 15, 2013 letter from SSW Engineers which appears to be <br />intended to respond to both public comment at the October 2, 2013 hearing, and Mr. Rubin's <br />calculations. PT.R-6. Mr. Conte objects to this letter as new evidence. PT.R-1. The Hearings <br />Officer finds that to the SSW Engineers letter appears to be calculated to respond to Mr. <br />Rubin's October 9, 2013 letter and complies with the Hearings Official's open record schedule <br />set at the October 2, 2013 hearing. <br />More importantly, the SSW Engineers letter does not add new information so much as explain <br />the stormwater analysis that was already in the record on July 30, 2013, and which was <br />attached to the letter. It does not appear that Mr. Rubin was aware of the prior stormwater <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 30 <br />