From: 	Jennifer Thompson
To:	David Margolis-Pineo;  Doug Roncarati;  Helen Donaldson
Date: 	1/20/2015 1:03 PM
Subject: 	Re: question re maintenance agreement & responsibilities for infrastructure

I'll defer to David, etc. on this - but my concern is that I don't want a new exhibit to create any ambiguity in terms of what's required.  If the condition of approval was clear, then that should cover it.  But, again - if others are comfortable that the new proposed exhibit will not muddy the waters or conflict in some way, then I'm not opposed to including it.  It should however clarify that the property owner is responsible for maintenance of the inlet.  Right now, it doesn't seem to me to say that as expressly as it references the City's responsibility (and everyone agrees we're responsible for the pipe, right?)

>>> Helen Donaldson 1/13/2015 8:40 AM >>>
All, 
 
Attached see a grading plan and a maintenance agreement for a subdivision out on Pamela Road.  David, you'll recall that the plans show an area of wetland on the upland side of the proposed street.  David Senus reviewed this and accepted the grading and drainage plans with an inlet at the low point of this wetland.  Since this inlet is on private property, all felt a maintenance agreement was appropriate.  Jen has reviewed the maintenance agreement and requested some changes (see edits in redline.  Note that some of these are mine.).  
 
Just now they've responded to Jen's edits with a request to include an exhibit that shows that the inlet is they're responsibility but that the pipe is ours (also see attachment).  Does this seem appropriate to everyone here?
 
Nell