HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201300007 Legacy Document 2014-03-14 (5)SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The purpose of this document is to outline several of the more substantive changes proposed to the
current floodplain regulations. This is not a complete listing. The changes are divided into those that are
federally mandated and those that are not.
Mandatory Regulations for Flood Insurance Program
1. Floodplain Administrator — establish a Floodplain Administrator and the list of associated
powers and duties. The County Engineer is the designated Floodplain Administrator. (18- 30.3.6)
2. Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMA), Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) and Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) — establish a
process for the administrative review of circumstances when development causes a change in
the base flood elevation. (18- 30.3.10)
3. Floodplain Development Permit — establish this permit for any development proposed in the
floodplain. (18- 30.3.12(A))
4. Building Permits — establish a process and submittal requirements for a building permit
authorizing construction within the floodplain. This includes expanded submittal requirements
such as: existing and proposed ground elevations, the base flood elevation on the site, the
elevation of the lowest floor and the elevation to which the structure will be flood - proofed.
(18- 30.3.12(D))
5. Floodplain Impact Plan — Establish a "floodplain impact plan" prepared by a professional
engineer or other professional with demonstrated qualifications to allow the Floodplain
Administrator to conduct a complete review of the impacts to the floodplain that may be caused
by an encroachment. This plan shall demonstrate that the proposed encroachment will not result
in an increase in water surface elevation of the base flood or a change in the boundaries of the
Flood Hazard Overlay Distirct (FHOD). Establish an application and fee associated with review of
floodplain encroachments. (18- 30.3.13)
6. Construction Standards — establish standards for construction within the floodplain that includes
flood - proofing and the establishment of drainage paths. (18- 30.3.15)
7. Variances — Clarify the criteria for a variance in addition to factors to be considered. (18- 30.3.17)
8. Site Plans and Subdivision Plats — Expand the required information to include the elevation of
the lowest floor and the elevation to which structures will be flood - proofed. (18- 32.5.2, 18- 32.5.7,
14 -302, 14 -308)
9. Fences — new and replacement fencing crossing a FHOD stream channel is subject to break-
away construction standards and permitting. County and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District staff will cooperatively administer a simplified permit process, to include
advance and retroactive permits, such as for emergency repairs. (18- 30.3.15(D))
Additional Recommended Regulations (not mandatory)
Fill in the Floodplain — Generally, fill is not allowed in the floodway. Therefore, this issue relates
to fill in the floodway fringe. The current ordinance requires a special use permit for fill without
regard to the following: the purpose, the amount of fill, whether cut and fill are balanced and
whether the flood elevation or floodplain boundaries are changed. Some of the more minor fill
proposals, such as to level a playing field or a parking area, do not warrant a special use permit
review provided the fill does not: a) increase the flood elevation and /or b) change the extent or
limits of the floodplain. More significant fill or fill involving a structure such as a bridge would still
be subject to a special use permit. Staff recommends allowing the more minor fill proposals that
meet those criteria to be reviewed administratively with submittal of a floodplain impact plan. Fill
will still be subject to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements for maintaining the buffer and
mitigating any encroachments. The special use permit process is still appropriate for any of the
more significant proposals of fill that should be reviewed against the County's policies and
regulations for protecting systems (critical slopes, floodplain, open space) in addition to the
technical review. Summary statement: reduce the process from a special use permit to
Floodplain Administrator approval based on a Floodplain Impact Plan for minor fill that will have
no impact on flood elevations or limits of the floodplain. (18- 30.3.11, 18- 30.3.14)
Stream Crossings — Stream crossings involving fill and /or a culvert in the floodplain currently
require a special use permit. Staff recommends allowing by -right stream crossings for pedestrian
trails or driveways serving single family dwellings that a) comply with the Water Protection
Ordinance; b) can be shown to have no impact on the elevations or limits of the floodplain; and c)
will serve one dwelling unit that could not be accessed by other means. Summary statement:
reduce the process from a special use permit to Floodplain Administrator approval based on a
Floodplain Impact Plan for stream crossings involving pedestrian trails and /or driveways serving
single family dwellings. (18- 30.3.11)
3. Flood Control or Environmental Restoration — Under certain standards, projects involving
flood control or environmental restoration are permitted by -right in the floodplain. Among these
standards is the requirement that all natural materials be used. Staff recommends allowing
manufactured materials when approved as appropriate by the Floodplain Administrator. In
addition, staff recommends changing the standard from the amount of cut and fill to where
(channel or overbank) and how the fill is proposed. Summary statement: change the standards
for by -right flood control and environmental restoration projects to allow more appropriate
materials to be used and information to be submitted. (18- 30.3.11)
4. Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PSWF) - The current regulations allow Tier I and II PWSF
by -right in the floodway (moving water during a flood event) and Tier III PWSF by special use
permit in the floodway fringe. Staff suggests that it is not advisable to allow new PWSF structures
within the FHOD. Collocations on existing structures should not negatively impact the FHOD and
should be permitted. The practical reality is that much of the FHOD consists of lower elevations
which are not preferable for PWSF signals. Summary statement: eliminate the allowance for
new structures serving PSWF in the floodplain. Continue to allow PSWF attachments to existing
structures by -right (Tier 1). (18- 30.3.11)
5. Freeboard - Staff recommends establishing a freeboard of 1 foot above the base flood elevation
(freeboard is a factor of safety typically expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of
floodplain management). Establishing a freeboard is strongly recommended by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) because it provides an additional safety factor to cover development and fill in
the floodplain. Freeboard in the proposed zoning text amendment relates only to finished floor
elevation for new construction within the FHOD. It does not increase the regulatory limits of the
FHOD. Summary statement: establish a 1 foot freeboard for an increased safety measure for
new construction within the limits of the FHOD. (18- 30.3.5 (definitions), 18- 30.3.12(D), 18-
30.3.13(D), 18- 30.3.15)