Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />The proposed rule also would correct the existing provision concerning the obligation <br />to maintain stormwater management facilities. This provision imposes on the property <br />owner a perpetual maintenance responsibility, but says this may be fulfilled either <br />through a maintenance agreement or by municipal acceptance of "the required <br />easements." This language does not reflect the intent of the rule or how it has been <br />consistently applied. The correction (Paragraph 3(c)(vi)) would clarify: <br />• That property owner assumption of maintenance occurs through execution and <br />recordation of a declaration or similar instrument that establishes permanent <br />maintenance responsibility and runs with the property; and <br />• That municipal assumption of the perpetual maintenance responsibility does not <br />require an easement conveyance. Instead, a municipality that wishes to assume <br />responsibility must outline its maintenance program in the local water <br />management plan it is required by law to prepare, and the District must approve <br />the program. Thereafter, a simple written commitment to maintain the facilities <br />in question, by an appropriate municipal official, will suffice. <br />Finally, the rule would incorporate the existing, but not explicit, District requirement to <br />provide certified as -built surveys and drawings of stormwater facilities on final site <br />stabilization (Paragraph 3(c)(vii)). These confirm construction and installation in <br />accordance with the approved design and ensure that sedimentation and other <br />construction -phase disturbances have been rectified. They also provide a baseline for <br />later maintenance. <br />H. Exceptions <br />As noted earlier, the exceptions section will be greatly simplified by expanding the <br />applicability section of the rule. <br />In addition, two existing exemptions would be deleted. First, consistent with the <br />earlier- discussed shift from detention to infiltration, because a detention basin no <br />longer is required, the existing exemption from the detention basin requirement <br />(present Paragraph 6(g)) would be deleted. Secondly, the existing provision waiving <br />the freeboard requirement for certain short- duration floods (present Paragraph 6(h)) is <br />deleted and superseded by the comprehensive freeboard provisions of the proposed <br />rule. <br />13 <br />