The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-02-11 FINAL 7:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 11, 1998 ROOM 24 I, COUNTY OFF1C. E BU1L1)ING 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). ZMA-97-08. Minor Amendment to Glenmore PRD (Sign #96&97). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 11 acs from RA to PRD to add acreage to Glenmore PRD, change max number of units from 764 to 775 & modify Gen'l Conditions. Znd RA. Loc at end of Ashton Rd approx 2700' from inter w/Rt 250 E & Glenmore Way. TM94,P50 to be added to Ps93Al-I,93-61,61A,&61B. [The property is designated for Neighborhood Density 3-6 du/ac in the Village of Rivanna in the Comp Plan.] R.ivanna Dist. ZMA-97-10. The Storage Center (Sign #91). (To be deferred until April t5, 1998.) PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to repeal Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resources Protection Areas, and to adopt Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Chapter 19.3 establishes standards and procedures for erosion and sediment control, the management of stormwater rtmoff, and the retention or establishment of stream buffers, to continue, amend, and/or restate those standards and procedures set forth in the chapters, or parts thereof, to be repealed. Approval of Minutes: December 6, 1995; Februat3r 7, 1996, January 15 and April 2, 1997. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Adjourn. CONSENT AG'ENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.t Resolution Amending the Service Agreement of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. 5.2 Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construction and Renovation Proiects. 5.3 Response to Library Board on Request to Retain FY 1996/97 Carryover Ftmds. 5.4 Reappoint John Miller to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Board. FOR INFORMATION: 5.5 Copy of letter dated January 20, 1998, from J. T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, regarding the North Grounds Connector (Proj: RUVA-002-101, PE-101). 5.6 Copy of minotes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of December 11, 1997. 5.7 Copy of memorandum dated }~anuary 20, 1998, from Paul 1. Muhlberger, Recyde Program Coordinator, to Bill Mawyer; Director of Engineering and Public Works, re: Spring 1998 Bulky Waste Proposed Budget. 5.8 Copy of memorandum, re: Strategies to Address the FY 1997-9 Revenue Shortfall in the School Division. 5.9 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 27, 1998, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker. Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerl~ February12,1998 Board Actions of February 11, 1998 At its meeting on February 11, 1998. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. l. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Item No. 5.1. Resolution Amending the Service Agreement of the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional ]all Authority. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Item No, 5.2. Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construct/on and Renovation Proiects. APPROVED. Item No. 5.3. Response to Library Board on Request to Retain FY 1996/97 Carryover Funds. AGREED with staff's recommendation to request the return of the FY 1996/97 carryover funds to be used for fffture library needs in the CIP. Item No. 5.4. Reappoint John Miller to the [ames River Alcohol SafetyAction Program Board. REAPPOINTED John Miller to the lames River Alcohol SafetyAction Program, with term to expire on January 1, 2001. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-97-08. Minor Amendment to Glenmore PRD (Sign #96&97). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 11 acs from }LA to PRD to add acreage to Glenmore PRE), change max number of units from 764 to 775 & modify Gen'l Conditions. Znd PA. Loc at end of Ashton Rd approx 2700' from inter w/Rt 250 E & Glenmore Way. TM94.PS0 to be Memo To: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 12, 1998 Page 2 added to Ps93Al-l,93-61,61A,&.61B. [The property is designated for Neighborhood Density 3-6 du/ac in the Village of Rivanna in the Comp Plan.] Rivanna Dist. APPROVED ZMA-97-9, as proffered, dated August 28, 1997 (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-97-10. The Storage Center (Sign #91). (To be deferred until April 15, 1998.) DEFERRED tmtil April 15, 1998. Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to repeal Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resources Protection Areas, and to adopt Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Chapter 19.3 establishes standards and procedures for erosion and sediment control, the management of stormwater runoff, and the retention or establishment of stream buffers, to continue, amend, m~d/or restate those standards and procedures set forth in the chapters, or parts thereof, to be repealed. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. REAPPOINTED W. Ivar Mawyer to the Equalization Board, with term to expire on December 31, ~998. REAPPOINTED Mr. I. Randolph Parker to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, with term to expire on April 16, 2002. Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter he and Mx. Martin received from Mayor Kay Slaughter regarding the use of mnplified music at Towe Park on May 9, 1998, for the Rivanna River Festival. Following some discussion, the Board asked staffto review the Towe Park Agreement to see if there is any action required by the Board as it relates to this request. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 8:00 p.m., the Board adjourned into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A), under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to Charlottesville's transition to town status. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 9:10 p.m.. the Board reconvened into open session and certified the Executive Session. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 12, 1998 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. The meeting was immediately adjourned. Attachments cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne Wl~ite Kevin Ci Castner Larry Davis Amdia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Spri~lde Yadira Amari File PROFFER FORM Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) Date: 8/P-8/9'7 ZMA # 11.041 'Tax Map Parcel(s)~T~93Al~ Parcel l; TM93 parcels 61'&6lB, T~94~50, 93-61A Acres to be rezoned from - RA to PRD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, it' rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part o¢ the requested rezoning and it is agreed that; (1) the rezoning itsel[gives rise to the need for the condilions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. The development of the Property will be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (T), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia (hereinat~er referred to as the Zoning Ordinance) as that Sectionis in effect on April 16, 1997, witha residential development not to exceed 775 single family units together with a site for a school, mad a site for a fire house, either of which sites may be used for other public use facilities, and development of a private country club and recreational facilities including but not limited to tennis, m&nmLng, a golf course with related club house, and equestrian center. To be excluded fi-om use by right or special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance are Section 19.3.1' (2) and (3); and Section 19.3.2 (1), (3), (5), (6) and (7). Upon the reque~ of.Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift.to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to item of~ecord affecting title, for a public school or other public use hcil~ties as the Count,/may ~elect a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as sh6wn on the Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate fight of way, provided owner may requke reasonable visual screening/buffering of the 27 acre~. Upon the request of'Albemarle County, Virginia. to donate by git~ to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to itero~ of record affecting title, for a fire department or other public use facilities as.the County may select a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan for Gleemore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffeting of tho six acres. At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot or the issuance ora certificate of occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute 5;1000.00 to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) a school capital improvement fund for use by Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of Stone Robinson Elementary School or to construct a new school on the site described in paragraph 2 of this proffer, or (2) the costs, including any awards to the owner of the mineral fights for the property described in paragraphs 2 and ~t of this proffer, or (3} other items in the Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Glenmore) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P. directly related to this project (Glenmore). These funds shall be held by the County in an interest bearing account with an annual accounting to the owner. All interest earned on the account shall be used for the Same purposes as the original $1000.00 contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or his family be consulted in connection with naming of any facilities for which these funds are used. To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities at the owner's expense for the residential lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such facilities to the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority. These facilities are to he built at no cost to the taxpayers of Albemarle County or to the customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority. To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the Rivanna River a 100 Foot wide green belt. No buildings shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt without the consent of Albemarle Count~ and it shall be preserved in its natural state except for building of pedestrian and fiding trails and general beautification including but not limited to the Clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup ofthe river. The owner may grant across the green belt utility easements, access easements to the Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the private country club and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the area. At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park, the 100 foot wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemarle County, will be conveyed by ~ and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities, accesses to the river, and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gift and provided further that the greenbelt area will continue to be coumed a s open space for the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density. The green belt may Cominue to be maintained by the owner of the property, however in the absence of such maintenance Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100 foot wide green belt. (a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990 shall be built at time of residential lot development to VDOT standards and placed in the State Secondary System from U.S. Route 250E t6 Point A as shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore. (b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate as right-of-way for public'road pUrposes(i) a strip of land sot to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point B as Shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (ii) an existing strip of land of variable widthowned by the owner from Point B to Point C as shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore. (c) To construct a road to VDOT standards fi-om Point C extending through the northeastern portion of the development in a location and with a termination point to be determined by the owner. It is intended that this roadway shall provide access to properties northeast of Glenmore in at least one location. To dedicate at such time as owner may select or upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, whichever first occurs, the road described in this paragraph, 7 (c), together with a right-of-way, including the built road, not to exceed 60 feet in width. (a) To construct within the existing right-of-way ofU. S. Route 250E and if necessary partially on the property currently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve Glenmore. This shall be constructed at the time ofinitiai residential lot development in Glenmore or at a later date if approved by V'DOT. Co) To install upon the request of VDOT on U. S. Route 250E at the entrance to Glenmore a traffic signal, provided the request fi-om VDOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore which for purposes of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last residential lot is sold to a third part3' purchaser or 15 years fi-om date of final approval of ZMA 90-19, whichever first occurs. (c) Providing the work is completed within 15 years from date of final approval of ZMA 90-19, to contribute upon completion (i) a pro-rata contribution of the cost of construction (as hereinafter defined) to four-lane U. S. Route 250E fi-om the Glenmore entrance to Route 22, or (ii) $500,000.00, whichever sum is less. A traffic count on U. S. Route 250E shall be made by VDOT immediately to the east of the intersection ofU. S. Route 250E and Route 22 within a reasonable time prior to construction with the pro-rata contribution of the owner determined by a formula which includes a fi-action the numerator of which is the traffic count on U. S. Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 attributable to residences in Glenmore and to the country club facility in Glenmore (Glenmore Traffic) and the denominator of which is the total traffic coum on U. S. Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 (Total Traffic) as follows: Glenmore Traffic X Construction Cost -- Pm-Rata Contribution Total Traffic In the event that there shall not have been substantial performance of proffers contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 within ten (10) years fi-om the date of final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive his fights under Virginia Code Section 15.1-491(al). Substantial performance shall, include (I) donation of the land described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, i.f requested by Albemarle Count~, (2) payment of at least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer, and 0) construction and dedication to the appropriate authorities of the public water and sewer facilities pursuant to paragraph 5 of this proffer. 10. Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan dated November 2, 1990 revised August 20, 1997, and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated September 24, 1990 and amended November 2, 1990 including textual program of development as approved under ZMA-90-19 and amended by subsequent rezoning actions. Final development plans shall incorporate all comments and recommendations of the SRC of October ll, 1990. 11. Maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in accord with Section 18-7 and Section 18-36 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April !6, 1997. 12. At least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be employed for security purposes. 13. Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through.the existing private road network within Olenmoro. Ashton Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer does not affect Proffer 7 above. 14. These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated May 21, 1997. Signature of Atto,ney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Names ol All Owners OR Printed Name o! Attorney-in-Fact RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY Be it Concurrently Resolved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, the Board of Superv~sors of Albemarle Counfy, and the Cify Council of the City of Charlottesville: I. RECITALS The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the "Authority") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia I collectively the "Member Jurisdictions") have previously approved and executed a Service Agreement dated November 15, 1995, (the "Service Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions under which ( 1 ) the Authority will operate the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will cormnit prisoners to the Jail and pay the charges assessed by the Authority for keeping such prisoners. In preparing to ~ssue bonds to fund the cost of the improvements planned for the Jail, the Authority has determined that certain amendments to the Service Agreement are necessary and appropriate to secure the most favorable terms for the sale of such bonds, and has approved and recommended these amendments to the Member Jurisdictions. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations described in the amended sections, the parties agree to amend the Service Agreement as follows: II. AMENDMENTS Section 5.1 of the Service Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 5.1 Payments from Member Jurisdictions (a) Per Diem Prisoner Payments. (1) In preparing its Annual Budget, the Authority shall establish a per diem charge for the care, maintenance and subsistence of Prisoners from Member Jurisdictions during the next Fiscal Year. This per diem charge shall consist of two components, induding an Operating Component, and a prisoner-based Debt Service Component. ]?he Operating Component shall be calctdated to produce revenues that equal the Authority's projected Net RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY Be it ConcurrentI, v Resolved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authori~, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, and the City Council of the Ci~ of Charlottesville I. RECITALS The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the "Authority") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively the "Member Jurisdictions") have previously approved and executed a ServSce Agreement dated November 15~ 1995, (the "Service Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions under which (1) the Authority will operate the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will commit prisoners to the Jail and pay the charges assessed by the Authority for keeping such prisoners. In preparing to issue bonds to fund the cost of the improvements planned for the Jail, the Authority has determined that certain mnendmems to the Service Agreement are necessary and appropriate to secure the most favorable terms for the sale of such bonds, and has approved and recommended these amendments to the Member Jurisdictions. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations described in the amended sections, the parties agree to amend the Service Agreement as follows: II. AMENDMENTS Section 5.1 of the Service Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 5.1 Payments from Member Jurisdictions Per Diem Prisoner Payments. (1) In preparing its Annual Budget, the Authority shall establish a per diem charge for the care. maintenance and subsistence of Prisoners from Member Jurisdictions during the next Fiscal Year. This per diem charge shall consist of two components, including an Operating Component, and a prisoner-based Debt Service Component. the Operating Component shall be calculated to produce revenues that equal the Authority's projected Net (2) (3) Operating Expenses for such Fiscal Year and the Debt Service Component shall be calculated to produce revenues equal to the portion of the Authority's Net Debt Service for such Fiscal Year includable in such per diem charge under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section. Such per diem charge will be adjusted by the Authority periodically as provided in Section 4.7. The Operating Component shall be invoiced by the Authority to the Member Jurisdictions not later than the 15th day of the month following the month in which the service was provided. The Member Jurisdictions shall pay the amount invoiced not later than the last day of the month in which billed. The Debt Service Component shall be invoiced quarterly by the Authority and shall be payable no later than the last day of the first month of each quarter beginning in July 1999 ( or such earlier or later date as to which debt service on the Authority's Bonds and Notes has been capitalized). To facilitate the successful financing of the Jail, The Member Jurisdictions agree to advance their ratable shares of the Debt Service Component as budgeted by the Authority in accordancewith the percentages established armually as set forth in this Section notwithstanding the actual number of Prisoners committed or expected to be committed to the Jail, subject to later adjustment to reflect actual use of the Jail as provided in paragraph (a) (3, I) of this section. (3.1) The Debt Service Component percentages shall be adjusted each Fiscal Year to approximate the actual proportionate use of the Jail by the Member Jurisdictions as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year; provided, however, the percentages to be paid by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville shall at no time equal in the aggregate less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Debt Service Component payment for the Fiscal Year in question, and provided further that the advance payment of the Debt Sev¢ice Component requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in proportion to their respective usages) for the amounts actually received from other Member Jurisdictions, if any, during the preceding quarter. 2 (4) If not paid when due, the Per Diem Charge and Additional Payments for Debt Service provided in subsection (b) below shall bear interest at the rate established under Section 11-62.10 of the Code of Virginia until paid; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply in instances where applicable law prescribes some other due date or late payment charge. (5) Within sixty (60) days of the end of the each Fiscal Year, the Authority shall adjust the Debt Service Component for each Member Jurisdiction to reflect the amount each Member should have paid during such year based upon actual proportionate use of the Jail and compare it to the amount paid by each Member. Any Member Jurisdiction which has underpaid shall be billed by the Authority for the amount of the shortfall. Any Member Jurisdiction that has overpaid shall be entitled to a credit in the muount of such overpayment to be applied against the next Debt Service Component payment due from such Member; provided, however, no Member shall be entitled to a full credit until such time as the Authority has received payment of all underpaid amounts. In the event the Authority receives a portion but not all of the payments due for underpaid bills, the Authority shall apply the amount received ratably as a partial credit to Members that overpaid. (b) Additional Payment for Debt Service. In addition to the Per Diem Charges for their respective prisoners, Albemarle and Charlottesville each shall pay, in equal shares, an amount sufficient in the aggregate to fund 100°/6 of that port/on of the Authority's Net Debt Service not being included in the Authority's Per Diem Charge as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Any other Member Jurisdiction shall likewise pay a percentage of such portion of Net Debt Service not included in the Per Diem Charge, with such percentage being established at the time the additional Member Jurisdiction joins the Authority. These Additional Payments for Debt Service shall be paid by the Member Jurisdictions quarterly on the same schedule as the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge becomes due, provided that the Additional Payment for Debt Service requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in equal 3 shares) for the amounts of such Additional Payments for Debt Service actually received from other Member Jurisdictions, if any, during the preceding quarter. (c) Method for Allocating Debt Service Costs. The Authotity's Net Debt Service costs shall be allocated between the Debt Service Component of the per diem rate charged to the Member Jurisdictions and the Additional Payments for Debt Service in the following manner: Upon the awarding of a contract or contracts for constructionof any addition or improvements to the lail or replacement for the Jail, the chief administrative officers of the Member Jurisdictions shall determine the relative proportions of the total projected Capital Expenses for such project that are attributable respectively to (i) the construction or improvement of cells or other prisoner housing areas and (ii) the construction or improvement of administrative, program and support areas. The relative proportions of Capital Expenses for these two categories shall be expressed as percentages, In the event the chief administrative officers are unable to agree on this allocation, the dispute shall be resolved by majority vote of all members of the Authority, whose determination shall be binding. (2) Collection of the Authority's Net Debt Service for the project shall then be accomplished through the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge and the Additional Payment for Debt Service in the same proportions, so that the Net Debt Service attributable to cells or prisoner housing space is collected through the Per Diem Charge, and the Net Debt Service for other parts of the project is collected from the Member Jurisdictions in equal shares. For example, if 65% of the total Capital Expense is determined to be attributable to the calls and prisoner housing areas, then the Per Diem Charge for Member Jurisdictions shall be calcttlated to include 65% of the annual Net Debt Service, with the remaining 35% of Net Debt Service being collected equally from the Member Jurisdictions through the Additional Charges for Debt Service. (d) Payment for Costs of Discontinued Capital Project. If for any reason any capital project previously approved by the Member Jurisdictions is not constructed, the Member Jurisdictions shall reimburse the Authority, in shares determined as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any Capital Expenses the Authority has already incurred in connection with such discontinued project; provided, however, that the payment required by any Member Jurisdiction under this subsection will be subject to the appropriation of funds for such purpose by the governing body of the Member Jurisdiction. (e) Additional Payments to Cover Debt Service Shortfalls. After the issuance of the Bonds, if the Authority lacks suffident funds to pay scheduled debt service on the Notes, the Authority will promptly notify the Member Jurisdictions of the amount of such insufficiency. Upon such notification, the Member Jurisdictions each agree to pay, subject tothe conditions contained in: this paragraph, a portion of such defidt equal to its Debt Service Component percentage then in effect pursuant to Section 5.1 (a) (3): Any such payment under this paragraph will be subject to the appropriation of funds by the governing body of each Member Jurisdiction and shall constitute a moral, non-binding payment obligation. The obligations of the Members under this paragraph: shall expire only upon the payment of the Notes. In no event shall the obligation of any Member Jurisdiction under this paragraph (e) or the immediately preceding paragraph (d) be deemed to constitute a debt within the meaning of the Constitution of Virginia. B. Paragraph (b) of Section 6.6 of the Service Agreement is ddeted in its entirety, and paragraph (c) thereof is re-numbered as paragraph (b). C. In all other respects the Service Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IIL EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT Upon adoption of these amendments by the Member Jurisdictions and the Authority, their respective chief administrative officials are authorized to execute a conformed copy of the entire Service Agreement, incorporating the foregoing amendments into the original document. 5 Adopted by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authori{y: Attested: Date: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County: Date: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville: Attested: ~)ate: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY Be it Concurrently Resolved by the Albemarle-CharlottesvilIe Reg~onal ]ail Authori~y, the Board of Supervtsors of Albemarle Courtly, and the City Council of the City of Charlottesville: I. RECITALS The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the "Authority") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. po!itica~ subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively the "Member Jurisdictions") have previously approved and executed a Service Agreement dated November 15, 1995, (the "Service Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions under which (1) the Authority will operate the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will commit prisoners to the Jail and pay the charges assessed by the Authority for keeping such prisoners. In preparingto issue bonds to fund the cost of the improvementsplanned for the Jail, the Authority has determined that certain amendments to the Sezvice Agreement are necessary and appropriate to secure the most favorable terms for the sale of such bonds, and has approved and recommended .these amendments to the Member Jurisdictions. Now. therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations described in the amended sections, the parties agree to amend the Service Agreement as follows: II. AMENDMENTS Section 5.1 of the Service Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 5.1 Payments from Member Jurisdictions (a) Per Diem Prisoner Payments. (I) In preparing its Annual Budget, the Authority shall establish a per diem charge for the care, maintenance and subsistence of Prisoners from Member Jurisdictions during the next Fiscal Year. This per diem charge shall consist of two'components, including an Operating Component, and a prisoner-based Debt Service Component. The Operating Component shall be calculated to produce revenues that equal the Authority's proiected Net Operating Expenses for such Fiscal Year and the Debt Service Component shall be calculated to produce revenues equal to the portion of the Authority's Net Debt Service for such Fiscal Year includable in such per diem charge under the pro,asions of subsection (c) of this section. Such per diem charge will be adjusted by the Authority periodically as provided in Section 4.7. (2) The Operating Component shall be invoiced by the Authority to the Member Jurisdictions not later than the 15th day of the month following the month in which the service was provided. The Member Jurisdictions Shah pay the m~ounz invoiced not later than the lastday of :the month in which billed. (3) The Debt Service Component shall be invoiced quarterly by the Authority and shall be payable no later than the last day of the frrst month of each quarter beginning in July 1999 ( or such earlier or later date as to which debt service on the Authority's Bonds and Notes has been capitalized). To facilitate the successful financing of the Jail. The Member Jurisdictions agree to advance their ratable shares of the Debt Se~wice Component as budgetedby the Authority in accordance with the percentages established annually as set forth in this Section.noOwithstanding the actual number of Prisoners committed or expected to be committed to the Jail, subject to later adjustment to reflect actual use of the Jail as provided in paragraph (a) (3. l) of this secv~on. (3.1) The Debt Service Component percentages shall be adiusted each Fiscal Year to approximate the actual proportionate use of'~he Jail bythe M~mber }~urisdictions a's Of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year; provided, however, the percentages to be paid by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesvilie shall at no time equal in the aggregate less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Debt Service Component payment for the Fis(al Year in question, and provided further that the advance payment of the Debt service Component requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in proportion to their respective usages) for the amounts actually received from other Member Jurisdictions, if any, during the preceding quarter. 2 (b) If not paid when~ due, the Per Diem Charge and Additional ,Payments for Debt Service provided in subsection (b) below shall bear interest at the rate established under Section 11-62.10 of the Code of Virginia until paid; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply in instances where applicable law prescribes some other due date or late payment charge. (5) Within sixty (60) days of the end of the each Fiscal Year, the Authority shall adiust the Debt Service Component for each Member Jurisdiction to reflect the amount each Member should -~ha,ve paid durl~ng s74ch year based upon actual proportionate use of the Jail and compare it to the amount paid by each Member. Any Member Jurisdiction which has underpaid shall be billed by the Authority for the amount of the shortfall. Any Member Jurisdiction that has overpaid shall be entided to a credit in the amount of such overpayment to be applied against the next Debt Service Component payment due from such Member; provided, however, no Member shall be entitled to a full credit until such time as the Authority.has received payment of all.underpaid amounts. In the event the Authority receives a portion but not all of the payments due~ for underpaid bills, the Authority shall apply the amount received ratably as a partial credit to Members that overpaid. Additional Payment for Debt Service. In addition to the Per Diem Charges for their respective prisoners, Albemarle and Charlottesville each shall pay, in equal shares, an amount sufficient in the aggregate to fund 100% of that portion of the Authority's Net Debt Se~,ice not being included in~ th~:~ktz~ority's Per Diem Charge as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Any other Member Jurisdiction shall likewise pay a percentage of such portion of Net Debt Service not included in the Per Diem Charge, with such percentage being established at the time the additional Member Jurisdiction joins the Authority. These Additional Payments for Debt Service shall be paid by the Member Jurisdictions quarterly on the same schedule as the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge becomes due, provided that the Additional Payment for Debt Service requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in equal shares) for the amounts of such Additional Payments for Debt Service actually received from other Member Jurisdictions, if any, during the preceding quarter. (c) Method for AlloCating Debt Service Costs. The Authority's Net Debt Service costs shall be allocated between the Debt Service Component of the per diem rate charged to the Member Jurisdictions and the Additional Payments for Debt Service in the following manner: <1) Upon the awarding of a contract or contracts for construction of any addition or improvements to the Jail or replacement for the Jail, the chief administrative officers of the Member Jurisdictions shall determine the relative proportions of the total projected Capital Expenses for such project that are attributable respectively to (i) the construction or improvement of ceils or other prisoner housing areas and (ii) the construction or improvementof administrative,program and support areas. The relative proportions of Capital Expenses for these two categories shall be expressed as percentages. In the event the-chief administrative officers are unable to agree on this allocation, the dispute shall be resolved by majority vote of all members of the Authority, whose determination shall be binding. (2) Collection of the Authority's Net Debt Service for the project shall then be accomplished through the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge and the Additional Payment for Debt Service in the same proportions, so that the Net Debt Service attributable to cells or p~soner- housing .space is :collected ttir0ugl4 t:he Per ~Diem Charge, and the Net Debt Sendce for other parts of the project is collected from the Member Jurisdictions in equal shares. For example, if 65% of the-total Capital Expense is determined to be attributable to the ceils and prisoner housing areas, then the Per Diem Charge for Member Jurisdictions shall be calculated to include 65% of the annual Net Debt Service, with the remaining 35% of Net Debt Service being collected equally ,from the Member - Jurisdictions through the-Additional:Charges: for Debt Service. 4 (d) Payment for Costs of Discontinued Capital Project. If for any reason any capital project previously approved.by [he Member Jurisdictions is not constructed, the Member Jurisdictions shall reimburse the Authority, in shares determined as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any Capital Expenses the Authority has already incurred in connection with such discontinued project; provided, however, that the payment required by any Member Jurisdiction under this subsection will be subject to the appropriation of funds for such purpose by the governing body of the Member Jurisdiction. (e) Additional Payments to Cover Debt Service Shortfalls. After the issuance of the Bonds, if the Authority lacks sufficient funds to pay scheduled debt service on the Notes, the Authority will promptly notify the Member Jurisdictions of the amount of such insufficiency. Upon such notification, the Member Jurisdictions each agree to pay, subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph, a portion of such deficit equal to its Debt Service Component percentage then in effect .pursuant to Section,5,,l~(a) (:3).. Ar3y:s~ch payment under this paragraph w/l/be subject to the appropriati0nof ftmds by the governing body of each Member Jurisdiction_and s?,all Constitute .a moral, non-binding payment obligation. The obligations of the Members under this paragraph shall expire only upon the payment of the Notes. In no event shall the obligation of any Member Jurisdiction under this paragraph (e) or the immediately preceding paragraph (d) be deemed to constitute a debt within the meaning of the Constitution of Virg/nia. B. ~ Paragraph t~,J o~ oe~uon 6..6 of th~ SepAce,Agreemem~2s~deleted in its entirety, and paragraph (c) thereof is re-numbered as paragraph (b). C. In all other respects the Service Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. III. EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT Upon adoption of these amendments by the Member Jurisdictions and the Authority, their respective chief administrative officials are authorized to execute a conformed copy of the entire Service Agreement, incorporating the foregoing amendments into the original document. 5 Adopted by the Albemarle. Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority: Attested: Date: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count,: Date: ~ -,/,2 -,~d3 / Adopted by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville: Attested: Date: 6 David ~ Bowed-nan Charlotte 5'. Hurnphris Forr~t R. Mamh~l. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMA!R~ ~ Office of Board of Supe~visars 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. krar3inia 229024596 {804) 296-5843 FAX [804} 296-5800 February 17. 1998 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perkins White Ha~ Sally H. Thomas Mr. John R. Isom Superintendent Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 1600 Avon Street Extended Charlottesville, Va 22901 Dear Mr. Isom: At its meeting on February 1 t, I998, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached Resolution to Amend the Service Agreement of the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. Please forward me notice of the Jail Authority's action on this resolution. Sincerely~ Eib W. Carey, Clerk, C~C /ewc Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled p~per David R BOWmTnan Chm'~o~ Y. H~mphri~ Fon~t P~ Iviarsh~]], Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 February 17, 1998 Charles S. Marlin Waiter E Perkins Sally H. Thoma~ Ms. leanne Cox Clerk. City Council City HaU PO Box 911 Charlottesville. Va 22902 Dear Jeanne: At its meeting on February 11. 1998. the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached Resolution to Amend the Service Agreement of the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. Please forward me notice of City Council's action on this resolution. /ewc Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM/ / Attachments CC; Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Melvin Breeden Pdnted on recyc~d paper ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTE SVILLE REGIONAL JAIL 1600 AVON STREET EXTENDED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Phone: ($04~977-6981 fa:c:~O4)-977-9~lTor($04}-979.7677 O.ARD OF SUPERVISORS .3 ,o ~,SA, : 9 RCV March 17, 1998 Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority met on March 12, 1998 and adopted the Resolution to Amend the Service Agreemem. As requested, this letter is written to inform you of the Authority's action. Sincerely, ~ Superintendent mb COUNTY OFALBEMARLE- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O^ m oF su? Rwsov, s AGENDA TITLE: Resolution Amending the Service Agreement of the Aibemarle-Chariettesville Regional Jail Authority SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amendment of Service Agreement STAFF CONTACT[S): Messrs. Tucker/Breeden/Daws AGENDA DATE: February 11, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Service Agreement was reviewed by the Authodty's financial advisor and attorney in-preparation for the Authodty's plans to issue bonds to pay for the expansion of the jail. They have recommended that several provisions of the Service Agreement be amended to facilitate the sale of the bonds and to secure the most favorable terms. DISCUSSION: The proposed amendments modify how the City and County make the per diem payments and specifies that the City and County will be responsible for the total debt service even if additional jurisdictions join the Jail Authority. The City and County share of debt service would be offset by payments of the debt service of any future members. This debt service arrangement allows the bonds to be marketed based solely upon the financial strengths of the City and County. The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Director of Finance and County Attorney. The Jail Authority requests that the amendments be approved. City Council is scheduled to consider this request at a February meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to Amend the Service Agreement of the Albemarle- Charloftesville Regional Jail Authority. 98.020 FROM~ . 1 884 225 8356 81-2B-98 02:31PM TO 1804~724868 :11¢ P.2/6 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY Be it Concurrently Resolved by the Atbonarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count_, and the City Council of the City of Charlottesville: L RECITALS The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the "Authority") alld the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively the "Member Jurisdictions") have previously approved and executed a Service Agreement dated November 15, 1995, (the ~Service Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions under which (1) the Authority will operate the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional J~il (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will corn. mit prisoners to the Jail andpay the charges assessexl by the Authority tbr keeping such prisoners. In preparing to issue bon&~ to ~und the cost of the improvements plamled tbr the Jail, the Authority has determined that certain amendments m the Service Agreement are neces~ry and appropriate to secure the most favorable terrr~ for the sale of suchbonds, and has approved and recommended these amendments to the Member $urisdictions. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations described in the amended sections, the parties agree to amend the Service Agreement as follows: II. AM'ENDMENTS A. Section 5. I of the Service Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with thc following: Section 5.1 Payments from Member Jurisdictions (a) Per Diem Prisoner Payments. (1) In preparing its Annual Budget, the Authority shall establish a per diem charge for the care, maintenance and subsistence of Prisoners from Member Jurisdictions during the next Fiscal Year. This per diem charge shall consist of two components, including an Operating Component, and a prisoner-based Debt Service Component. The Opera/hag Component shall be calculated to produce revenues that equal the Authority's projected Net Operating Expenses for such Fiscal Year and the Debt Service Component shall be calculated to produce revenues equal to the portion of the Authority's Net Debt Service for such Fiscal Year includable in such per diem charge under the provisions of FROM' . 1 B04 ZZ5 8356 81-29-98 ~Z:31PM TO 1BO487Z4B§B ~114 P.3/§ subsection (c) of this section. Such per diem charge will be adjusted by the Authority periodically as provided in Section 4.'7. (2) ~l~e Operating Component shall be invoiced by the Authority ro the Member ~Iurisdictions not later than the 15th day of the month following the month in which the service was provided. The Member Jurisdictions shall pay the amount invoiced no~ later than the last day of the month in which billed. (3) The Debt Service Component shall be invoiced quarterly by the Authority and shall be payable no later than the last day of the first month of each quarter beginning in July 1999 ( or such earlier or later date as m which debt service on the Authority's Bonds and Notes has been capitalized). To facilitate the successful financing of the Jail, The Member Jurisdictions agree to advance their ratable shares of the Debt Service Component as budgeted by the Authority in accordance with the percentages established annually as set forth in this Section notwithstanding the actual number of Prisoners committed or expected to be committed ro the Jail, subject to later adjustment to reflect actual use of the Jail as provided in paragraph (a)(3.1) of this section. (3.1) The Debt Service Component percentages shall be adjusted each Fiscal Year to approximate the actual proportionate use of the Jail by the Member Jurisdictions as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year; provided, however, the percentages ro be paid by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville shall at no time equal in the aggregate less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Debt Service Component payment for the Fiscal Year in question, and provided further that the advance payment or the Debt Service Component requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in proportion to thek respective usages) for the mounts actually received from other Member Jurisdictions, if any, during the preceding quarter. (4) If not paid when due, the Per Diem Charge and Additioual Payments rot Debt Service provided in subsection (b) below shall bear interest at the rate established under Section 11-62.10 of the Code of Virginia until paid; provided, however, that this provision shall nor apply in instances where applicable law prescribes some other due date or late payment charge. (5) Within sixty (60) days of the end of the each Fiscal Year, the Authority shall adjust the Debt Service Component/'or each Member lurisdiction to reflect the amount each Member should have paid during such year based upon actual prolxmionate use of the Jail and compare it m the amount paid by each Member. Any Member Jurisdiction which has underpaid shall be billed by the Authority for the amount of the shortfall. Any Member Jurisdiction that has overpaid shall be entitled to a credit in the amount of such overpayment to be 2 FROM ', 1 884 225 8356 81-29-98 82:32PM TO 18049724068 :~114 P,4/6 applied against the next Debt Service Component payment due from such Member; provided, however, no Member shall be entitled to a full credit until such time as the Authority has received payment of alt underpaid mnounts, in the event the Authority receives a portion but not all of the paymenm due for underpaid bills, the Authority shall apply the amount received ratably as a partial credit to Members that overpaid. (b) Additional Payment for Debt Service. In addition to the Per Diem Charges for their respective prisoners. Albemarle and Charlottesville each shall pay, in equal shares, an amount sufficient in the aggregate to fund 100% of that portion of the Authority's Net Debt Service not being included in the Authority's Per Diem Charge as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Any other Member Jurisdiction shall likewise pay a percentage of such portion of Net Debt Service not included in the Per Diem Charge, with such percentage being established at the time the additional Member Jurisdiction joins the Authority. These Additional Payments for Debt Service si'mil be paid by the Member Jurisdictions quarterly on the same schedule as the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge becomes due. provided that the Additional Payment for Debt Service requested from Albemarle and Charlottesville for each quarter shall reflect a credit (applied in equal shares) for the mounts of such Additional Payments for Debt Service actually received from other Member Jurisdictions. if any, during the preceding quarter. (c) Method for Allocating Debt Service Costs. The Authority's Net Debt Service costs shall be allocated between the Debt Service Component of the per diem rate charged to the Member Jurisdictions and the Additional Payments for Debt Service in the following mam~er: (1) Upon the awarding of a contract or contrac[q for cormtruction of any addition or improvements to the Jail or replacement for the Jail. the chief administrative officers of the Member Jurisdictions shall determine the relative proportions of the total projected Capital Expenses for such project that are attributable respectively to (i) the construction or improvement of cells or other prisoner housing arms and (ii) thc constructkm or improvement ofadmhdstrative, program and support areas. The relative proportions of Capital Expenses for these two categories shall be expressed as percentages, tn the event the chief administrative officers are unable to agree on this allocation, the dispute shall be resolved by majority vote of all members of the Authority, whose determination shall be binding. (2) Collection of the Authority's Net Debt Service 1hr the project shall thcn be accomplished through the Debt Service Comtxment of the Per Diem Charge and the Additional Payment for Debt Service in the same proportions, so that the Net Debt Service attributable to cells or prisoner housing space is collected through ~e Per 3 FROM '. I 804 ZZ5 8356 01-Z9-~8 8Z:3ZPM TO i80497Z4068 ~114 P.5/B Diem Charge, and the Net Debt Service for other parts of the project ia- collected from the Member Jurisdictions in equal shares~ For example, if 65 % of the total Capital Expense is determined to be attributable to the cells and prisoner housing areas, then the Per Diem Charge for Member Jurisdictions shall be calculated to include 65% of the annual Net Debt Service, with the remaining 35% of Net Debt Service being collected equally from the Member Jurisdictions through the Additional Charges for Debt Service. (d) Payment for Costs of Discontinued Capital Project. If for any reason any capital project previously approved by the Member Jurisdictions is not constructed, the Member Jurisdictions shalireimburse the Authorit5, in shares deform/ned as provided in paragraph Co) of this section, for any Capital Expenses the Authority has already incurred in cormection with such discontinued project; provided, however, that the payment required by any Member Jurisdiction under this subsection will be subject to the appropriation of ~nds for such purpose by the governing body of the Member Jurisdiction. (e) Additional Payments to Cover Debt Service Shortfalls. After the issuance of the Bonds, if the Authority lacks sufficient funds to pay scheduled debt service on the N ores~ the Authority will promptly notify the Member Jurisdictions of the amount of such insufficiency. Upon such notification, the Member Jurisdictions eachagree to pay, subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph, a portion of such deficit equal to its Debt Service Component percentage then in effect pursuant to Section 5.1 (a) (3). Any such payment under this paragraph will be subject to the appropriation of funds by the governing body of each Member Jurisdiction and shall constitute a moral, non-binding payment obligation. The obligations of the Members under this paragraph shall expire only upon the payment of the Notes. In no event shall the obligation of any Member Jurisdiction under this paragraph (e) or the immediately preceding paragraph (d) be deemed to constitute a debt within the meaning of the Constitution of Virginia. B. Paragraph (b) of Section 6.6 of the Service Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and paragraph (c~ thereof is re-numbered as paragraph (b). C. In all other ,esT~ects the Service Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. ITl. EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT Upon adoption of these amendmeI~ts by the Member Jurisdictions and the Authority, their respective chief administrative officials are authorized to execute a conformed copy of the entire Service Agreement, incorporating the foregoing amendments into the original document. 4 FROH '. ! 884 ZZ5 8356 81-2~-98 82:33PH TO 1884~724068 ~114 P.6/§ Adopted by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority: Attested: Date: Adapted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County: Attested: Date: Adopted by the City Council of the City o3~ Charlottesville: Attested: Date: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construction and Renovation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Locali§es for School Construction and Renovation Projects STAFF CONTACT(S): Mesers. Tucker. White AGENDA DATE: February 11 1998 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: RENEWED BY: ITEMNUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Loudoun County, Virginia is seeking support for a legislative proposal that would provide for a 50% reimbursement to localities for school construction and renovation projects. The proposed legislation would provide for the Commonwealt~ to reimburse localities for one half of the capital costs of a school construction, enlargement, or renovation project based on State standards. Site acquisition, site development, and furnishings and fixtures would not be included in the reimbursement formula, nor would it include the facility costs that exceeded the State standard. Loudoun is asking the County to support this legisla~ve initiative and to endorse a similar legislative proposal. A copy of Loudoun's request and the resolution endorsed by their Board of Supervisors are included as Attachment A. DISCUSSION: Staff has developed a legislative proposal similar to that adopted by Loudoun County. The content of the proposal, whicl~ is included as Attachment B, has been adapted to ~Albemarle. and some statistics have been included on education funding in Virginia. The missing data on the potential reimbursement for Albemarle County (to be included at the bottom of page one of the proposal) will be provided to the Board by staff on Wednesday, February 11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests approval of the attached legislative proposal to provide for state reimbursement of localities for school construction and renovation projects. g8.022 Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construction and Renovation Currently, the State provides some funding to localities for the operation of schools. In FY 1996/97, the Commonwealth provided approximately 36.3% of total education revenues ($2.3 b'tllion), while localities in Virginia contributed 58% ($3.7 billion) of total education receipts. Virginia is considerably lower than the national average in this regard, where, on average, 48.9% of education funds were provided by state governments and 44.2% were funded by local sources. Virginia also ranks last in terms of State receipts among Southeastern states, where, in FY 1996/92, state governments provided an average of 53.6% of education revenues and 38.2% came ~om localities. (NEA, 1997) At this time, however, localities in Virginia are totally responsible for the cost of constructing new schools, or their renovation. Virginia is one of only a handful of states that does not provide direct grant funds to localities for either capital needs or debt service expenditures. (Gold, et al, 1995) Although the Commonwealth provides assistance in the form of loans, it is one of only eight states across the nation to do so. (GAO, 1995) Within the Southeastern region, nine states provide grant or other direct cash funding assistance for capital needs, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Only Arkansas, Virginia and Louisiana do not. (Gold, et al, 1995) This proposal would encourage legislation to be passed that would change the basic funding responsibilities between the State and localities for school construction. The basic elements of this proposal include: Provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse any city or county for one half of the capital costs of a school construction, enlargement or renovation project upon approved standards by the Commonwealth. (Reimburse direct facility costs.) Site acquis'ffion, site development, and furnishings and fixtures would not be part of the reimbursement formula. (Land acquisition, site development and interior fit out would be the responsibility of the locality.) · The Commonwealth would need to adopt facility standards for various size schools. · Renovations would be reimbursed where a facility is being brought up to the State standards. · The potential reimbursement for Albemarle County could range between $9.75 million to $10.25 million, at a minimum, over the next five years. · For debt financed pro. jeers, this program would have a positive impact on the County's net debt capadty. · No revenue source is suggested as being attributed to this initiative at this rune. Approved by the Albemarle Coumy Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, February 11, /. . Clerk, ~d'~em/rle Couhty B~ar~of Supervtsors Sources; General Accounting Office (1995.) "School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical Support Varies." Washington, D.C. Gold, Steven D., et aL (1995.) Public School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada: 1993-94, Vol. I. American Education Finance Association and Center for the Study of the States; The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New'York. National Education Association (1997.) 1996-97 Estimates of School Statistics. Washington, D.C. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supen,'isors 401 Mdntim Road Charlollesl.'flle, Virffmia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 February 12. 1998 Charles S. Mar~n Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas The Honorable Emily Couric Senator PO Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Dear Senator Couric: At its meeting on February 1 I, 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the attached legislative proposal that would provide for State reimbursement to localities for school construction and renovation. Your support of this proposal would be appreciated. Sincerely, Carey, CMC / Clerk /kwc Attachment CC: The Honorable Emily Couric The Honorable Mitchell VanYahres Bonnie Fronfelter, Legislative Liaison The Honorable Dale Polen Myers Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF A~ REMARLE O~:e o~ Board of Superviso~ 401. Mclntire Road (80~) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins February 12, 1998 The Honorable Mitchell VanYahres 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Delegate VanYahres: At its meeting on February 11 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the attached leg/slative proposal that would provide for State reimbursement to localities for school construction and renovation. Yoursupport of this proposal would be appreciated. Sincerely, Care /ewc Attachment CC: The Honorable Emily Couric The Honorable Paul C. Harris Bonnie Fronfelter Printed on recycled paper David E Bowema~a Chadotm Y. Humphs~ Fortest It. blal~fl, ,k. COUNTY OF ALBEMA~ F Office of Board of Supe~'~sors (~4) 296...~,43 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles $. l~.ar~n Walter E I:'m-kim ,Sally H. Thomm February 12, 1998 The Honorable Paul C. Harris 100 Court Square Annex. Suite B PO Box 1276 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Delegate Harris: At its meeting on February 1 I. 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisom adopted the attached legislative proposal that would provide for State reimbursement ro localities for school construction and renovation. Your support of this proposal would be appreciated. Sincerely, Carey. CMC I Clerk _ J /ewc Attachment CC: The Honorable Emily Couric The Honorable Mitchell VanYahres Bonnie Fronfeker Printed on recycled paper ATTACHMENT Loudoun County, Virginia Board of Supervisors 1 Harrison Street. S.E.. 5th Floor, P.O. Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177-7000 703/777-0204 · Metro: 703/478-8415 January 26, 1998 The Honorable Forrest R~ Marshall, Jr. Chairman, Albemarle County Route 6 - Box 305-A Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Chairman Marshall, Jr.: As you know, rite State provides some funding to localities for the operation of schools. However. given the fiscal impact of school construction on local governments, Loudoun County is asking Virgirfia localities to support proposed legislation that would provide for State assistance to localities for school construction and renovation. On Wednesda.v. January 21, 1998, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to endorse a legislative proposal that would provide for a 50% State reimbursement to localities for school construction and renovation. The proposal would provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse localities for one-half of the capital costs of a school construct/on, enlargement, or renovation project based on State standards. Site acquisition, site development, and furnishings and fixtares are not included in the reimbursement formula, nor are facility costs that exceed the State standard. A copy of the specific proposal is enclosed. Loudoun County requests your Board or Council support this legislative initiative and send us a copy of your resolution. We also urge you m contact your legislators and seek their support. Please feel free to Contact Bob Griffin, Assistant to the County Administrator at (703 777-0200 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dale Polen Myers Chairman Enclosure Dale Polen Myers, Chairman Eleanore C. Towe Blue Ridge Dis~ct David G. McWattets Broad Run Dis~ict Helen A. Marcum Jo~ G. Rokus Lawrence $. Beerman,II Jim Burton D,Jlles Dis~ct M~cer District Scott K. York Sterl/ng District Stove Whitener Sug~rlaud Run Disuict Loudoun County, V-zrginia Office of the County Administrator ! Harrison Street, $.E., 5th FIoor, P.O. Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177-7000 703/777-0200 · Metro: 703/478-8439 · Fax: 7031777~0325 At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County, Virginia, held in the County Administration Building, Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 1 Harrison St., S.E., Leesburg, Virginia, on Wednesday, January 21, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. PRESENT: Dale Polen Myers, Chairman Joan G. Rokus, Vice Chairman Lawrence S. Beerman II James G. Burton Helen A. Marcum David O. McWatrers Eleanore C. Towe Steven D. Whitener Scott K. York F/NANCE COM2MJTTEE REPORT/LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL/STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Mr. Beerman moved that the Board of Supervisors approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee to support the legislative proposal (attached) to provide for State reimbursement of localities for school construction and renovation. Seconded by Mr. York. Voting on the Item: Supervisors Myers, Beerman, Burton, Marcum, McWatters, Rokus, Towe. York and Whitener - Yes; None - No. A COPY TESTE: COUNTY' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLM:REJAN21 E.98 Legislative Proposal To Provide For State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construction and Renovation Currently the State provides some funding to local/ties for the operation of schools. However, at this time, ~ocalities are totally responsible for the cost of construction of new schools, or their renovation. This proposal would encourage legislation to be passed that would change the basic funding responsibilities between the State and localities for school construction. The basic elements of the proposal include: Provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse any city or county for one-half of the capital costs of a school construction, enlargement or renovation project upon approved standards by the Conm~onwealth. ~Reimburse direct facility costs.) Site acquisition, site development, and fi2-nishings and fixtures would not be part of the reimbursement formula. (Land acqmshion, sire development, interior fit out would be the responsibility of the locality.) · The Commonwealth would need to adopt facility standards for various size schools. · Renovations would be reimbursed where a facility is being brought up to the state standards. The potential reimbursement for Loudoun i fall school projects were debt financed could range between $7 ~ $14 million per year over the end of the six years of the CIP. · For debt financed projects, this pro,mn would have a positive impact on the County's net debt capacity. · No revenue source is suggested as being attributed to this initiative at this time. c: fc116984 Attachment B Legislative Proposal to Provide for State Reimbursement of Localities for School Construction and Renovation Currently, the State provides some funding to localities for the operation of schools. In FY 1996/97, the Commonwealth provided approximately 36.3% of total education revenues ($2.3 billion), while localities in Virginia contributed 58% ($3.7 billion) of total education receipts. Virginia is considerably lower than the national average in this regard, where, on average, 48.9% of education funds were provided by state governments and 44.2% were funded by local sources. Virginia also ranks last in terms of State receipts among Southeastern states, where, in FY 1996/97, state governments provided an average of 53.6% of education revenues and 38.2% came from localities. (NEA, 1997) At this time, however, localities in Virginia are totally responsible for the cost of constructing new schools, or their renovation. Virginia is one of only a handful of states that does not provide direct grant funds to localities for either capital needs or debt service expenditures. (Gold, et al, 1995) Although the Commonwealth provides assistance in the form of loans, it is one of only eight states across the nation to do so. (GAO, 1995) Within the Southeastern region, nine states provide grant or other direct cash funding assistance for capital needs, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virgima. Only Arkansas, Virginia and Louisiana do not. (Gold, et al, 1995) This proposal would encourage legislation to be passed that would change the basic funding responsibilities between the State and localities for school construction. The basic elements of this proposal include: Provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse any oty or county for one half of the capital costs of a school construction, enlargement or renovation project upon approved standards by the Commonwealth. (Reimburse direct facility costs.) Site acquisition, site developmem, and furnishings and fixtures would not be part of the reimbursement formula. (Land acquisition, site development and interior fit out would be the responsibility of the locality.) · The Commonwealth would need to adopt facility standards for various s~ze schools. · Renovations would be reimbursed where a facility is being brought up to the State standards. · The potential reimbursement for Albemarle County could range between year over the end of the five years of the CIP. per Attachment B · For debt fiaanced projects, this program would have a positive impact on the County's Net debt capacity. · No revenue source is suggested as being attributed to this initiative at this time. Attachment B Sources: General Accounting Office (1995.) "School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical Support Varies." Washington, D.C. Gold, Steven D., et al. (1995.) Public School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada: 1993-94, Vol. I. American Education Finance Association and Center for the Study of the States; The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York. National Education Association (1997.) 1996-97 Est'nnates of School Statistics. Washington, D.C. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Library Request to Retain FY97 Carry-Over SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST Response to Library Board on their request to retain FY96/97 carry-over in the amount of $44,438 for their automation upgrade. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 11, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: RENEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No BACKGROUND: By agreement~ the Jefferson Madison Regional Library is required to return any unused carry-over funds to the localities if that amount exceeds 5% of their budget. For FY96/97, the amount of carry-over owed to Albemarle County is $44,438. DISCUSSION: The library board has requested that it be allowed to retain the $44,438 to be applied to Albemarle County's share of the library's proposed automation upgrade. For several reasons, staff would prefer to have the library remit the carry-over funds as required, so the County can retain the ability and flexibility to apply itto future library needs in the Capital Improvement Program. First, the County was unable to fund the Library's full CIP FY99 request for both the automation upgrade and maintenanCe and repair. Of the computerization request for $590,717, the County was only able to budget $300,000 leaving $290,717 of their original request unfunded. For the tibrary's maintenance and repair capital request, the Counb/was not able to fund $37,000 in FY99, $10,000 in FY01 and $46,000 in FY01. Second, it is our understanding that the automation plan is being reviewed again by beth the library board and its staff to determ~e if the costs can either be reduced or spread out across several years through a phase in process or possible lease payments over the next several years. This would make the total project more affordable to all the localities. In light of the fact that the automation plan has not been finalized, staff would like the opportunity to review the revised automation plan before committing an additional $44,438 to the project. The carry-over funds could be committed to future CIP library projects, but the County would have more discretion over the amount and sequencing of those future funds. We would also be able to trackthe expenditure of those funds as ClP library projects, not operating costs in a previous fiscal year budget. When the full costs and time flame for the automation plan are finalized, we will have a better sense of how the County's $44,438 carry-over funds should be used. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board agrees, staff will prepare a letter to George Tramont~,, Chairman of the JMRL Board, requesting the return of the FY96/97 carry-over funds to be used for future library needs in the CIP. 98.021 COUNTY OFALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DAT~E: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive February 5, 1998 James River ASAP Board Appointment Chief John Miller currently serves as Albemarle County's appointee to the James River Alcohol Safety Action ProgramBoard and his term expired in early January of this year. I am recommending that John be reappointed to serve on the ASAP Board for our jurisdiction effective retroactive to January 1, 1998 for a three-year term. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,Jr/dbm 98.018 pc: Chief John F. Miller Ms. Penny/L Norford, M.Ed. CCS, ASAP DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~2 J~, .gA :~.. ~CVD COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219 J.T. MILLS DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR January 20, 1S98 North Grounds Connector Proj: RUVA-002-101, PE-101 Albemarle County Modification to CTB Action Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 501 E Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 The Commonwealth Transportation Board, on January 15, ~9~ rescinded the approved design for the above project as appr6ve~b~ the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 17, 1997. This approval included the North Grounds Connector as a road no wider than 33'-0" curb to curb with appropriate right of way for that roadway section. Based on a request from the University of Virginia by letter dated 12/17/97, the CTB has approved the North Grounds Connector road design as a 4-lane divided roadway as presented at the public hearing. State Location and Design Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Bill Mawyer, Director Joe Letteri, Chief of Staff Services Paul J. Muhlberger, Recycle Program Coordinator January 20, 1998 Spring 1998 Bulky Waste Days Proposed Budget Based on a decrease in volume received from the Spring 97 BW Days (123 tons for 4 days) to the Fall 97 BW Days (66 tons for 4 days), I propose a reduction in the number of drop-off days for the Spring 98 event from 4 to the following 2 days: Saturday, April 18 at Earlysville Fire Station and Saturday, May 2 at Walton Middle School. Operating hours for both days will be from 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M., rain or shine. Based on expenditures for the past 8 Bulky Waste Drop-off Days, I anticipate the following for the Spring 98 Days: Expense Amount Percent of Total Cost Tipping Fees $2,500 39.6% RSWA Uniform Hauling Cost 900 14.2 (@ $20/ton) Advertising 1,500 23.8 Professional Movers 1,000 15.8 County Staff Overtime 350 5.5 Miscellaneous 50 0.7 TOTALS $6,300 100% We spent a total of $9,302.62 and received 123 tons for the Spring 97 Days, compared to $12.655.94 and 66 tons for the Fall 97 Days. The increase was due in part by spending $2.000 to use professional movers for the Fall 97 Days. The RSWA also charged the County tipping fees for tires received during the Fall 97 Days, whereas during the Spring 97 Days, all tipping fees for fires (approximately $4.500) were paid for under a DEQ Tire Amnesty Grant applied for by the RSWA. Based on volume received at both Earlysville F.S. and Walton M.S. during ~1997, I anticipate that we will receive 40 to 50 tons of material, collectively, during the Spring 98 Days. PJM/ybv Hie: PaulX.srng98bw.bud Subject: Strategies to Address the FY 1997-98 Revenue Shortfall Policy Reference: DB/DI Date: December 8, 1997 Enclosures: 0 Reason for Consideration: Action X Information Background On November 5, the School Board learned that because of a projected shortfall in local revenue, the school division would be required to reduce its FY I997-98 expenditures by approximately $1,080,000. At that time, Dr. Castner indicated that he would work with staff to develop strategies for addressing the shortfall. The strategies being presented have been fully reviewed by the division's Leadership Teank which incindes both school-based and central office staff. The primary criteria used to develop these strategies was to limit to the greatest degree possible the direct impact on school buildings. Making reductions in expenditures at this time of year is particularly problematic for the school division for the following reasons: Costly items such as vehicles, computers, and other major pieces of equipment have already been purchased in order to be available to use at the beginning of the school year. Therefore, these items cannot be deferred and the savings used to address the shortfall. All schools and departments are already subject tea 7.5% holdback of operating funds to serve as a buffer against the lapse factor and shortfalls in state revenue. In addition, 2.5% of last year's holdback was not released because of uncertainties in these two areas. Because of this, it would be especially difficult, especially on school buildings, to reduce budgets any further at this point. Administrative Consideration Staff recommends the following three-parr strategy to address the shortfall: I. Utilize a significant portion of Meals Tax revenue to gum approximately $600,000. The Meals Tax will be implemented on January 1, 1998. It has been projected that this tax will generate approximately $23 million in revenue per year, or about $1.15 million for the period of January 1 through June 30. Based on a 60% share of this revenue, the sdhool division would stand to receive approximately $690,000 ofthis revenue for the six-month period. For the purposes ofthis situation, a conservative estimate of funds that will actually be available is being utilized because of the newness of the tax and the inevitable implementation issues that may result in lower revenue at first. The negative of using January-June Meals Tax money in FY 1997-98 is that it would not be available for use in the FY 1998-99 Budget. However, Meals Tax revenue for the Janum-y-June period is non-recurring money. If used in the FY 1998-99 Budget for recurring costs, a new source of revenue for these costs would need to be found for the FY 1999-2000 Budget BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 Reduce a significant portion of the following areas from the 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to gain approximately $500,000, as follows: $50,000 for Technology $200,000 in Project Savings $120,000 in Canceled Projects $I30,000 HS Tech Labs The $50,000 for Technology will slightly reduce the number of computers purchased for both instructional and administrative functions. The $200,000 in project savings has resulted from projects that have cost less than actually bud~ted. These funds were being saved to provide funding for technology in FY 2000-01, when no CD money has been budgeted for this purpose. The $120,000 in canceled projects had been earmarked to upgrade the Burley bus loading area. Given that expansion of this building is possible at some point in the future, canceling this particular project is probably prudent. The $130,000 from the high school technology labs will result from this project costing less than its projected budget. This reduction will not cause this project to be delayed or reduced in any ~vay. l~rhite these cwo strate~es would potentially provide sufficient funds to cover the shortfall, staff is also recommending that additional strategies be pursued to generate scrvtngs that would lessen the need to utilize the Meals Tax and CIP fund. thus freeing this money to be used in the FY 1998-99 Budget. These strategies are as follows: Generate Miscollaneoas savings in the following areas: Adjustment to Building Temperature (Approximately $20,000-$24,000) Reduction to Software Purchases (Approximately $50,000) Reduction to Board Reserve and/or Budget (Approximately $40,000-$60,000) Extension of Hiring Period for Vacancies (Approximately $25,000-$40,000) Other (Approximately $15,000-$20,000) It should be noted that savings in theSe areas are more difficult to predict and must therefore be estimated. Following are explanations for each of these areas: AdiustrnenttoBuildin~Temoeramre- Currently, building temperaun'es are based on a setting of 72 degrees for heating and 74 degrees for cooling. Reducing heating f~om 72 degrees to 68 degrees and increasing cooling from 74 degrees to 76 degrees could generate savings of approximately $20,000 over sxx months. Increasing cooling to 78 degrees could increase the savings to approximately $24,000 for the six months. Reduction to Software Purchases - Currently, $200,000 is budgeted for instructional software purchases. Approximately $150,000 has been spent to fill school requests. Retaining the remaining $50,000 will not reduce any school requests that have been made to this point. Pa~ 3 Reduction to Board Reserve and/or Budger - ABoardReserveof$28,030wasestablishedwhantheFY 1997-98 Budget was adopted. In addition, unexpended funds from the Academic Leadership Prograrm approximately $65,000, also remain. The Board could utilize funding from these two areas and also examine its budget so determine if other expenditures such as for outside legal services could be deferred. By doing so, the Board could realize savings of approximately $40,000-$60,000. ExtensionofHirinzPeriodfor30Davs -Currently, the hiring period for non-teacher positions ranges from 0-40 calendar days, depending on the position. Increasing the period that positions remain vacant 30 calendar days beyond the norm could generate $25,000-$40,000 in savings from both salary and benefits. Mr. Morgan and Mrs. Ippolito would review requests for exceptions to this extension. Other- In addition to the aforementioned areas, approximately $15,000-$20,000 in savings might be realized through other targemd reductions in areas such as restricted out-of-state travel and administering the Parent Survey every other year. For the present, the FY 1996-97 Carryover, approximately $680,000, which we have consciously been conserving, will be held in reserve as an additional buffer against the FY 1997-98 shortfall or to use in the FY 1998-99 Budget. Recommendation Give conceptual approval to the strategies outlined to address the projected FY 1997-98 revenue shortfall. Provide direction to staff as appropriate. Prepared: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 16, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-97-08 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership Tax Map 94. Parcel 50 Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 1998, unan'unously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject acceptance of proffers as outlined in Attachment D of the staff report (copy attached). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on Febrna__ry.!l, 1998~ Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. tf you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcl CC: Ella Carey Tom Gale Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey ~-TOT~L ' TOTH.,~ II iUB-TOTPL i/iUB-TOTP/. TOT~t.~ N 0 SPI~ RiCO o.co 13~.oo TER. PLH4T 0.00 STATE ~ 0.00 1~6.00 114.90 0.11 0.00 115.01 9 40 10.00 1 TOTPL PRO3ECT .' LOT$/ROp~ (INCLLDIN~i ,?:PINE ROFO) STATE RC~D .%00 ~ STATE ~ ~.~ --' T~BLE 2 ~ILEI CDU~Ctt (~P, lO1 ) ~T 20~ 1997 C8I~IN~ PLhN (l) ~ F~-'VI~ED (2) 0.4~, 9.90 0..5~. 6.00 0.3~, 2.94. 0.:~. 47.4~ S~9.54 GCLF ~ /CLUB ~OLF CO,.R~: iFpS .00 13.0~. IS.5.00 13.3~4, SIll- TOTFt. 176.00 14.7'4 176.00 IS.1~· EQ~ESTRIF~/O~ 6PAC~: · LB-TOTF~L ,;19.02 011*ER; ~ ~ITE ~L~-TOT,~ 27.00 :3:S. O0 2.8~. TOTt~L 1 ~ 19.5.02 100.0~. 1,167,20 100,0~ -- TABLI~ A -- PLaN TERI IPA'Y PLANT 3.OO ~9-~ -TOTH,.. 567. O0 15.00 176.00 /~UESTRIH,~'C~ ,~P~C~; Ei~JESTRIP~J ~ ~PP~:~ ~1.02 ~B-TOT/~L 419.02 L/~JD (2) ~-V. (3) OEV. (4) (6) F~AN (226.~) (114.90) (10.00) 25.82 226.9q (9.9O) (4.'~0) 6.00 (2.~3) (0,11) 0o0~ (23~,71) (115o01) (10.00) 25.8~ 228.10 O.O0 O.O0 0.00 (20.64) (50.31) (20.~) (~0.31) OlPi~R~ ~ $IIE 27.00 (27.00) [:II~-rlJIE iii[ 6.0o (6.00) 5UB-TOT~ 33.00 (33.00) O.O0 0.00 0.00 TOT~ 1,195.02 (53.64) 155.00 6.00 0.~0 176.00 0.00 O.O0 O.O0 0.00 General Conditions for Development of the Glenmore PRD The following conditions are applicable to the land uses on the property, 1. The acres noted in Table 1 and Table 2 may be increased by fifteen percent (15%) within any tract, tract boundaries may be adjusted to meet field conditions, and tracts may be combined or divided at the time of preliminary plat review provided that: a. Common open space shall not be increased or decreased by more than fifteen percent (1'5%), provided that the requirements of the Sections 4.7 and 19.6.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as in effect on April 16, 1997 shall be met; b. The concepts of the Planned Development as they relate to the general location of types of land uses, circulation patterns, etc. are adhered to; c. The total number of permitted units and/or density oftbe development is not increased. d. Regulations as contained herein are adhered to. 2, Any single-family, detached residential tract may be developed as patio or golf cottages provided that the total number of units in the development does not exceed seven hundred seventy five (775) and that the requirements for the Master Plan are adhered to. 3. Opett space linkages shall be at least thirty (30) feet wide. 4. Alt residential tracts of more than fifty (50) dwelling units or with more that 1200 feet of lineal road frontage shall have at least two points of access, provided that the Planning Director may take exceptions at the time of site or preliminary plat review under criteria set forth in Section 32.3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Specific plans for the development of any tract shall conform to the review reqnirements of the Albemarle County Planning Deparrment and will address drainage, erosion control, landscaping of any parking lots, specific road alignments, cut and fill, and any other requirements of the County and shall be subject to the normal reviewprocess for preliminary plats~ final plats or site p!an~ 6. No uses shall be permitted except for irrigation purposes which would use any water of sewer system other than the Albemarle County public water or sewer system unless approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority and County Health Depoa auent. 7. The applicant shall install a uniform and effective signage system throughout the development and will, at the appropriate time, submit a complete signage concept to the Planning Director for review and approval. 8. Interpretations and clarifications of this application my be made by the Planning Director, without the necessity for amendment provided that the general intent, concept, densities, land use pattern, etc. of the textual'statement and Master Plan are adhered to. 9. There shall be at least one (1) swimming pool and two {2) all weather surface tennis courts and four clay surface tennis courts within the development. In additional, small neighborhood play areas and other recreational facilities may be incorporated where feasible. One basketball court is proposed and additional court(s) may be added in the future if demand by the membership warrants such. Some basketball facilities will be available at the school site aa that develops. 10. Lot Guidelines: a. Shagle family lots may front on and have direct access onto the spine road where topographic conditions and other site constraints dictate; b. Frontage for conventional cul-de-sac lots may be reduced to thirty-five (35) feet; c.: Access easements shall be provided to any lots that do not front directly onto the road or street; d. Flag lots shall be permitted. 1 I. Private roads shall be designed and conswacted in accordance with the following: Table 3: Private Road Standards for use in Glenmore PRD Number of Llnits Served Design/Construction Standards 'Notes ? Table A, Section 18-36 of the 1-2 Albemarle County Subdivision driveways to be paved Ordinance ' roads to be surfaced in accordance with VDOT pavement standards Table A, Section 18-36 of the 3-5 v Albemarle County Subdivision clearing of road easement shall be Ordinance a a restricted to matters of safety a~ identified by the County Engineer in the final review process clearing of road easement shall be Table A, Section 18-36 of the restricted to matters of safety as 6 or ~eater Albemarle County Subdivision identified by the County Engineer in Ordinance the final review, process ~ For areas where thc applicant demonstrates to the reasonable sazisfaction of thc Director of Planning that approval of such road will alleviate a clearly demonsmablc danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction of roads to VDOT Mountainous Terrain standards. For the pun~o~z of th S pro¥isinn. "significant delgadation" shall mcan an increase of thirty percent (30%) in either the total yulurae of grading or the total area of clearing fo[the construction of a VDOT Mounlainnas Tenain standard road as compared ~o a 3-5 lot Table A standard road. Trausmoo bcnvean VDOT Moun~ooas Ten'mn standard road and a 34 lot Table A standard road wal be accomp ished at e thor an ntersection or as an extension of thc road through a cul-de-sac. Traffic calming measures will be used In reduce the potential speed of vehicles naveling through the imersectioo. 3 Where appropriate as detem~incd by the Director of Planning. terminus of the 3-5 lot Table A standard road will be designed and constructed to accommodate the turnaround maneuvers of emergency vehicles. 12. Setbacks: a. Front Yard: Depth offi.ont yard shall be no less than twenty-five (25) feet except, in future cotlage sections, the fi.oat yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet for a maximum lineal distance of twenty-eight (28) feet provided that there shall be no openings except for garage door(s) in any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the street between twenty-five (25) feet and ten (10) feet from the front lot line; b. Side Yard: Depth of side yard shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet except, in future cottage sections, thc depth of the side yard shall be no less that three (3) feet. c. Comer Side Yard: Depth of side yard lots located at street intersections with common open space of a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet between thc lot and one of the street's right-of-way may be reduced to seven and on-half (7.5) feet. d. Rear Yard: Depth of rear yard shall be no less than twenty (20) feet except in cases in which the rear lot line abuts common open space or the golf course, then the rear yard of such lot may be reduced to ten (10) feet. ill© STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP JANUARY 13, 1998 FEBRUARY 11, 1998 ZMA 97-08 GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (applicant}; GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and William Tilman.{owners} ~ The applicant, Gtenmore Associates, proposes to.rezone 11.041 acres from PA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential Development in order to add adjoining land into the Glenmore PRD. Additionally, the applicant would like to revise the Proffers and General Conditions to increase the total number of single family units from 764 to 775. Petition: The petition to rezone property described as Tax Map 94, parcel 50 would enable the Tilman property to be included in the Glenmore PRD. The property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, within the designated growth area of Rivanna Village, The area is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre). A concurrent subdivision request shows how the property would be developed into single family lots and incorporated into the Glenmore road network. (See Attachment C) Character of the Area: At present, the Tillman property is developed with a single family dwelling and outbuildings, all of which will be demolished. The property was once called "Camp Swannanoa" but has not been used as a camp for many years. It is located at the end of Ashton Road. As a result of the most recent Glenmom rezoning, Ashton Road was to be terminated at the point where it enters the Glenmore property. The Tillman property would have been served by an internal Glenmore Road. Now that the Tillman property is to be included in the Glenmore development and a plat showing how the property will fit into the overall development has been filed, access is no longer an Issue. This property is the last remaining property to be completely surrounded by the Glenmore PRD. To the south of the property is the existing Glenmore development of single family homes and open space. To the north are undeveloped Glenmore properties. Further north and east are rural developed propemes and several large undeveloped tracts. To the west are single family homes that are not part of the Glenmore development. Surrounding properties which are not part of Glenmore are zoned RA Rural Areas and also are recommended for neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. RECOMMENDATION; Staff has reviewed this request for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Page 1 of 4 Planning and Zoning_ History.: In December- 1989, the Board of Supervisors created the Village of Rivanna in the Comprehensive Plan. Density of developmem was acknowledged as suitable to Village Residential zoning which was 0.7 to 1.09 dwelling units per acre. In the 1996 Land Use Plan, the recommended density for the Village increased to 3 to 6 dwellIng units per acre. In 1990, the Board ,of Supervisors approved the Glenmore planned Residential Development at a gross density of 0.63 dwelling units per acre. Between 1990 and this submittal, there have been several minor adjustments/clarifications related to the original approval. In 1994, the Board approved the addition of 8.028 acres into Glenmore which was a property adjoining the parcels under review at this time. In 1995. the Board of Supervisors amended the setback requirements in the development. In 1997. the Board of Supervisors approved the addition of two more properties to the development; increased the maximum number of single family units from 750 to 764; modified the provisions for private roads; and modified the termination point of Ashton Road. Comprehensive Plan: The property in question is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - 6 du/acre) in the Rivauna Village. Specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan relate to: preservation of floodplain and critical slopes upgrading of Route 250 East retaining the Village boundary as designated on the plan reserving water capacity for a potential new school not adding commercial area to the Village encouraging the development of an internal road network for the Village potentially allowing public service facilities in the Village that are consistent with the Community Facilities Plan The proposal to change the boundaries of the Glenmore PRD and modify the proffers would not conflict with any aspect of the specific recommendations. The proposal, however, would not increase density to the recommended minimum 3 dwelling units per acre. Because the property to be rezoned would be incorporated into an already approved master plan for the developmem, the issue of maintaining similar densities within the development is viewed to take precedence over mcreasmg density for the overall development area. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposal for any impacts on nearby and surrounding properties, traffic, public utilities, and schools. No impact on nearby and surrounding properties is anticipated because the subject'properties are already completely surrounded by Gleumore and this proposal would allow the properties to be further developed in keeping with the Gleumore Plan. Page 2 of 4 Regarding traffic, a previous proffer to install a traffic signal on and upgrade a portion of U.S. Route 250 may be enforced by the County whenever the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) deem it appropriate. VDOT has indicated that studies need to begin m determine when the signal will be warranted. For water and sewer service, the Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that there is sufficient capacity of water and sewer service for the development of eleven additional houses. Virtually, no impact would be anticipated on Albemarle County Schools. The eleven additional houses would result in an anticipated max'unum of 6 students spread out over the elementary, middle'school, and high school level. However, because existing zoning would allow development of the Tilman property into 5 lots, the real increase in houses is only 6, yielding an additional 3 students. Staff has also reviewed the proposal for anticipated results of increased density for the Glenmore Development and the results of modifying the proffers. These issues are addressed below: Additional acreage and increase in the maximum number of nnlts: Section 19.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance says that, for Planned Residential Districts (PRD): "Additional area may be added to an established PRD district if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were filed, and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage requirements of Section 19.5.1." At present, there are 1156 acres in Glenmore. The request to rezone 11 acres would result in 1167 acres for the development. The applicant previously proffered that the number of dwelling units in Glenmore would be no greater than 764. A proffer with this development proposal would result in eleven more dwelling units or a total of 775 dwelling units for the entire development. The parcel under consideration for rezonlng is the remaining property internal to, but not part of, Glenmore. There are five remaining development rights on the property which would yield five dwelling units under the RA zoning. Staff believes that the properties make a logical addition to the approved development. The proposed density is less than that proposed in the Land Use Plan. Changes to Master Plan: The proposed application plan amends the previous application plan by adding the Tillman property. No other changes have been made. Changes to the General Conditions: The only changes to the General Conditions are the addition of the acreage in the tables of acreage and a change in the Land Use Summary. No other changes have been made. Page 3 of 4 Summary_ and Recommendation The requested changes for the Glenmore developmem are reasonable requests for additional acreage and the ability to better utilize areas for development within the boundaries of the PRD. No impact is expected on adjacent properties by the addition of the 11 acres. The land use itself is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. And, while the proposed rezoning does not meet the Comprehensive Plan proposed density, it is consistent with the character of the existing Glenmore development. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and modifications of existing proffers for the Glenmore PRD. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Parcel Map B - Location Map C - Subdivision Plat D - Proffer Letter and Proposed Amendments to General Conditions Page 4 of 4 ZMA 97-08 MTN C ~ATTACH~i ZMA 97-08 Glenmore RECEIVED Planning Dept. Date: 8J28/97 ZMA # Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # PROFFER FORM Tax Map Parcel(s) gr~I93A1, Parcel I, TM93 Parcels 61 &6lB, TM94-50, 93-61A Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers Ihe condilions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself givesnse to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. The development of the Property will be limited to those uses allowed by fight under Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, V'trgin/a (hereinafter referred to as the Zoning Ordinance) as that Section is in effect on April 16, 1997, with a residential development not to exceed 775 single family units together with a site for a school, and a site for a fire house, either of which sites may be used for other public use facilities, and development of a private country club and recreational facilities including hut not limited to tennis, swimming, a golf course with related Club house, and equestrian center. To be excluded fi-om use by right or special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance are Section 19.3.1 (2) and 0); and Section 19.3.2 (1), (3), (5), (6) and (7). Upon the request of_Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by ~ to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a public school or other public use facilities as the County may select a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as shfwn on the Application Plan for Gtenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the 27 acres. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Vir~nia, to donate by gitt to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a fire department or other public use facilities as the County may [elect a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan for Gleemore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable visual screerdngJbuffefing of the six acres. At the time of closing of the sale of eachresidential lot or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1000.00 to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) a school capital improvement fund for use by Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of Stone Robinson Elementary School or to construct a new school on the site described in paragraph 2 of this proffer, or (2) the costs, including any awards to the owner of the mineral tights for the property described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, or (3) other items in the Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program(C.I.P.) related to this project (Glenmore) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P, directly related to this project (Glenmore). These funds shall be held by the County in an interest bearing account with an annual accounting to the owner. All interest earned on the account shall be used for the same purposes as the original $1000.00 contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or his family be consulted in connection with naming of any facilities for which these funds are used. To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities at the owner's expense for the residential lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such facilities to the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority. These facilities are to be built at no cost to the taxpayers of Albemarle County or to the customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority. To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the Rivanna River a 100 Foot wide green belt. No buildings shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt without the consent of Albemarle County and it shall be preserved in its natural state except for building of pedestrian and riding trails and general beautification including but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river. The owner may grant across the green belt utility easements, access easements to the Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the private country club and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the area. At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish along the Rivanna River ~ public area or park, the 100 foot wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemarle County, will be conveyed by ~ and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities, accesses to the dyer, and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gii~ and provided further that the green belt area will continue to be counted a s open space for the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density. The green belt may continue to be maintained by the owner of the property, however in the absence of such maintenance Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100 foot wide green belt. (a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990 shall be built at time of residential lot development to VDOT standards and placed in the State Secondary System fi.om U.S. Route 250E to Point A as shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore. (b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate as right-of-way for public'road purposes (i) a strip of land not to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point Ate Point B as Shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (ii) an existing strip of land of variable width owned by the owner from Point B to Point C as shown on the aforesaid App!ication Plan of Glenmore. (c) To construct a road to VDOT standards from Point C extending through the northeastern portion of the development in a location and with a termination point to be determined by the owner. It is intended that this roadway shall provide access to properties northeast of Glenmore in at least one location. To dedicate at such time as owner may select or upon request of Albemarle County,.Virginia, whichever first occurs, the road described in this paragraph, 7 (c), together with a right-of-way, including the built road, not to exceed 60 feet in width. (a) To construct within the existing right-of-way ofU. S. Route 250E and if necessary partially on the property currently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve Glenmore. This shall be constructed at the time of initial residential lot development in Glenmore or at a later date if approved by VDOT. (b) To install upon the request of VDOT on U. S. Route 250E at the entrance to Glenmore a traffic signal, provided the request fi-om VDOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore which for purposes of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last residential lot is sold to a third party purchaser or 15 years from date of final approval of ZMA 90-19, whichever first occurs. (c) Providing the work is completed within 15 years from date of final approval of ZMA 90-19, to contribute upon completion (i) a pro-rata contribution of the cost of construction (as hereinafter defined) to four-lane U. S. Route 250E fi-om the Glenmore entrance to Rome 22, or (ii) $500,000.00, whichever sum is less. A traffic count onU. S. Route 250E shall be made by VDOT immediately to the east of the intersection ofU. S. Route 250E and Route 22 within a reasonable time prior to codstruction with the pro-rata contribution of the owner determined by a formula which includes a fraction the numerator of which is the traffic count on U. S Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 attributable to residences in Glenmore and to the country club facility in Glenmore (Glenmore Traffic) and the denominator of which is the total traffic count on U. S. Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 (Total Traf~c) as follows: Glenmore Traffic X Construction Cost = Pro-Rata Contribution Total Traffic Lathe event that there shall not have been substantial performance of proffers contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 within ten (10) years fi.om the date of final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive his fights under Virginia Code Section 15.1491(al). Substantial performance shall, include (1) donation of the land described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, if requested by Albemarle Count% (2) payment of at least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer, and O) construction and dedication to the appropriate authorities of the public water and sewer facilities pursuant to paragraph 5 of this proffer. 10. Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan dated November 2, 1990 revised August 20, 1997, and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated September 24, 1990 and amended November 2, 1990 including textual program of development as approved under ZMA-90-19 and amended by subsequent rezoning actions. Final development plans shall incorporate all comments and recommendations of the SRC of October 11, 1990. 11. Maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in accord with Section 18-7 and Se~ion 18-36 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April 16, 1997. 12. At least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be employed for security purposes. 13. Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through the existing private road network within Gleamore. Aahton Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer does not affect Proffer 7 above. 14. These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated May 21, 1997. Si,~na~dres of,AlbOwners Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Names of All Owners Printed Name ol Attorney-in-Fact Date OR TABLE 1 ~SL~T 20, 1997 LOTS LOT5 ~ ~ LOTS TOTH-$ II ~L,~-TOTAL ~L~-TOT~.. TOTALS N o P1 ,P2A,P2~ Q R 41.00 0.00 0.00 4 16 7 36 164 60 122 S4~ 208 I14.90 0-11 0.00 I 15.01 2 12,13 41 57~.8~ .52?0.70 $.00 9.90 ,TABLE 2 ~.~ ~0 ~IL£: LDU~ (~101) ~T 20, 1997 C~IfI~ ~VI~ED R.~N (1) a PLaN (2) :~ P'UTL~E STRTE RO~D R~W 6.00 0.~ TEI~T IP/~f Pt.P~T 3.00 Si.~-TOT~L ~7.00 CLUB ~ H~INTI~ ~L~3-TOT~L. 176.00 14.7~-;. 176.00 l$.l~ F.~JESTRIAN/Ci:~N ~'~TRIAN 38. O0 3.24, 38.00 3.~,, SL~-TOT~ 419.02 35.1~, 451-~ OTHER: SCH(~L SITE 27.00 F IRE~GUSE SITE 6.00 0.~, SL~-TOTF~ TABLE A GL E]~C:~E PRO FILE: LOUE~T=H AL~UST ~0, 1~7 F~AN (1) LA~) (2) DE'V. (3) gEV. (4) HCt~[ (S) LAND L~D UEE: C~VELC~ ~E$I~N~I~L TP.~CTS/~INE RO~ STATE RORD P-trrt~E STATE TERTIARY FI.~NT 3.00 ~-TOT~L 5~7.00 AREA: 011-ER: ~ SITE 27.00 (27.00) o.oo FIREI-X:JJSE SiTE 6.00 (5.00) O.co q-TOTAL 33.00 (33.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o o.oo TOT/~L 1,195.02 (~3.~) (2~0.02) (1~8.24) (10.00) 2S.82 698.94 General Conditions for DeveloPment of the Glenmore PRD The following conditions are applicable to the land uses on the property. 1. The acres noted in Table 1 and Table 2 may be increased by fifteen percent (15%) within any tract, tract boundaries may be adjusted to meet field conditions, and tracts may be combined or divided at the time of preliminary plat review provided that: a. Common open space shall not be increased or decreased by more than fifteen percent (15%), provided that the requirements of the Sections 4.7 and 19.6.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as in effect on April 16, 1997 shall be met; b. The concepts of the Planned Development as they relate to the general location of types of land uses, circulation patterns, etc. are adhered to; c. The total number of permitted units and/or density of the development is not increased. d. Regulations as contained herein are adhered to. 2. Any single-family, detached residential tract may be developed as patio or golf cottages provided that the total number of units in the development does not exceed seven hundred seventy five (775) and that the requirements for the Master Plan are adhered to. 3~ Open space linkages shall be at least thirty (30) feet wide. 4. All residential tracts of more than fifty (50) dwelling units or with mere that 1200 feet of lineal road frontage shall have at least two points of access, provided that the Planning Director may take exceptions at the time of site or preliminary plat review under criteria set forth in Section 32.3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Specific plans for the development of any ~xact shall conform to the review requirements of the Albemarle County Plannlug Department and will address drainage, erosion control, landscaping of any parking lots, specific road alignmems, cut and fill, and any other req~ftrements of the County and shall be subject to the normal review prqcess for preliminary plats, final plats or site plans. 6. No uses shall be permitted except for irrigation purposes which would use any water of sewer system other than the Albemarle County public water or sewer system unless approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority and County Health Department. 7. The applicant shall install a uniform and effective signage system throughout the development and will, at the appropriate time, submit a complete signage concept to the Planning Director for review and approval. 8. Interpretations and clarifications of this application my be made by the Planning Director, vcithout the necessity for amendment provided that the general intent, concept, densities, land use pauern, etc. of the textual'statement and Master Plan are adhered to. 9. There shall be at least one (1) swimming pool and two (2) all weather surface tennis courts and four clay surface tennis courts within the development. In additional, small neighborhood play areas and other recreational facilities may be incorporated where feasible. One basketball court is proposed and additional court(s) may be added in the future if demand by the membership warrants such. Some basketball facilities will be available at the school site as that develops. I0. Lot Guidelines: a. Single family lots may front on and have direct access onto the spine road where topographic conditions and other site constraints dictate; b. Frontage for conventional cul-de-sac lots may be reduced to thirty-five (35) feet; e. Access easements shall be provided to any lots that do not front directly onto the road or street; d. Flag lots shall be permitted. l 1. Private roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following: Table 3: Private Road Standards for use in Glenmore PRD Number of Units I Served Design/Construction Standards 'Notes Table A, Section 18-36 of the 1-2 Albemarle County Subdivision driveways to be paved Ordinance roads to be surfaced in accordance [ with VDOT pavement standards Table A, Section 18-36 or,he 3-5 v Albemarle County Subdivision clearing of road easement shall be · Ordinance 2.~ restticted to matters of safety as identified by the County Engineer in the final review process clearing of road easement shall be Table A, Section 18-36 of the restricted to matters of safety as 6 or greater Albemarle County Subdivision identified by the County Engineer in Ordinance the final review, process -i-For areas where the applicant demonsWates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning that approval of such road will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the consamction of roads to VDOT Mountainous Terrain standards. For the purposes of this provision, "significant degradation" shall mean an increase of thirty percent (30%) in either the total volume of grading or the mini area of clearing for the construction of a VDOT Mountainous Terrain standard road as compared to a 3-5 lot Table A standard mad. ~ Transition between VDOT Mountaino~a Terrain standard road and a 3-5 lot Table A standard road will be accomplished at either an intersection or as an extension of the road through a cul.-de-sac. Traffic calming measures will he used to reduce the potential speed of vehiclas traveling through the intersection. 3 Where appropriate as determined by the Director of Planning, terminus of the 3-5 lot Table A standard road will be designed and constructed to acenmmndate the turnaround maneuvers of emergency vehicles. t2. Setbacks: m Front Yard:Depth of front yard shall be no less than twenty-five (25) feet except, in future cottage sections, the front yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet for a maximum lineal distance of twenty-eight (28) feet provided that there shall be no openings except for garage door(s) inany exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the street between twenty-five (25) feet and ten (10) feet from the front lot tine; b. Side Yard: Depth ofside yard shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet except, in future cottage sections, the depth of the side yard shall be no less that three (3) feet. c. Comer Side Yard: Depth of side yard lots located at street intersections with common open space of a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet between the lot and one of the street's fight-of-way may be reduced to seven and on-half (7.5) feet. d. Rear Yard: Depth of rear yard shall be no less than twenty (20) feet except in cases in which the rear lot line abuts common open space or the golf course, then the rear yard of such lot may be reduced to ten (10) feet. To: ECAREY (Ella Carey) Cc: Susan Thomas From: Wayne Cilimberg Subjecm: Re: February 11 agenda Date: 2/4/98 Time: 12:27PM Originated by: ECAREY @ ACVA on 2/2/98 2:40PM Replied by: WCILIMB ~ ACVA on 2/4/98 12:27PM At the request of the applicant, last night the PC deferred ZMA-97-10 The Storage Center to its March 3 meeting to be heard along with ZMA-97-13 Antony Valente which is the neighboring property. Therefore, the Board will not be able to hear this item next week. Since the Ewo rezonings are interrelated it would be desirable to have the Board hear them a5 the same meening. Valence is currently scheduled for April 15. Please let Susan Thomas and me know what the deferral date for the Board will be. Thanks. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen~ 40] Mclntire Road Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-$823 January 16, 1998 C. Todd Shields The Storage Center P O Box 7095 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ZMA-97-10 The Storage Center Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A1 Dear Mr. Shields:: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 1998, deferred the above-noted petition to its February 3, 1998 meeting. The Board of Supervisors will review this petition at its February 11, t 998 meeting. Both of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3253. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/jcf cc: Ella Oarey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance - Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing for New Water Ordinance STAFF CONTACT~Si: Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer, Kelsey, Hirschman AGENDA DATE: February 11, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: .ATTACHMENTS.' REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: DISCUSSION: The Board of Supervisors held a work session on the proposed Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance on December 3, 1997, and sot a public hearing date for February 11, 1998. A packet of supplemental information, including comments on the ordinance received from the public and focus group, was included with the December 3 Board packet. A cost impact report for the ordinance was included with the January 7, 1998 Board packet. This report analyzed the impacts of the proposed ordinance for development costs and costs to the County, including staffing. The process of developing this ordinance to replace and update the County's current water-related ordinances has taken three years. The process included warkJng with a focus group of interested parties to outline the objectives of the new ordinance. The Planning Commission held two work sossions on the ordinance during 1997. Most recently, the County AEorney's Office has been working closely with the Engineering Depariment to refine the ordinance's language and organization. It is the opinion of the County Attorney's Office and the Engineering Department that the ordinance is ready for adoption. Attached are the final draft of the ordinance (dated February 3, 1998) and an updated table that compares the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance to current County practice for water-related items. Comoarisons are made in the following topic areas: erosion and sediment conf~ol, stormwatar detention, water quality, stream buffers, regional stormwatar management, inspeddon and maintenance, bonding, design standards, and administration. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the new Chapter 19.3 of the Albemarle County Code - 'Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance.' 98.019 ALBEMARLE COUNTY: WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COMPARISON OF CURRENT PRACTICES TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE February 3, 1998 The following matrix compares current County water management to the proposed Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance. Comparisons are made in the following topic areas: erosion and sediment control; stormwater detention; water quality; stream buffers; regional stormwater management; inspection, maintenance, and enforcement; bonding; design standards; and administration. All references to the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance are to the f'mal draft, dated February 3, 1998, in preparation for the Board of Supervisors public hearing scheduled for February 11, 1998. [SSUI'~ Ct.'RRI':N'I' COt, N'I'Y COMI~RI.'I II.'.NSIVI: NN'.VI'I-.;R PRACTICF. RESOI..:RCF. S ORDINANCE Erosion & Chapter 7 of the County Code Article II is the E&S section. Both Sediment Control is the erosion a~d sediment existing and proposed ordinances control (E&S) section. This follow the state program, as detailed adopts the State's program at in the state Erosion Control Act and the County level. Regulations. The erosion and sediment The ordinance reflects amendments control program is to the state code and regulations administered by the made in 1993, 1995, and 1996. Engineering Department. E&S plans for development projects There may be minor language are reviewed, and regular changes from the existing ordinance, inspections are conducted but administration of the program during construction, will remain similar to current practices in the Engineering The State E&S Handbook is the Department, including plan designated design guide, submission and review procedures and schedules. A definition is added for "agricultural road" to prevent road construction for development projects from utilizing the agricultural exemption, and thus providing no E&S protection. P~el ISSt'E C t., RRENT COUNTY C, OM PREllENSI ~ E ~VATER I'R:MYI'ICE I~.E$OI.:RCI'~S ORI)INANCE Stormwater Both the Subdivision Ordinance Section 19.3-38 contains the Detention (section 18-22) and the Zoning stormwater detention provisions. Ordinance (section 32.7.4) require detention of the 10-year The proposed ordinance requires 10- storm in the "urban ring" year and 2-year storm detention for around Charlottesville (specific all areas of the County, as specified drainage basins known as the in the state Stormwater Management "Stormwater Detention Area"). Regulations. The Runoff Control Ordinance The ordinance has a clear listing of (chapter 19.1 of County Code) exemptions for stormwater specifies no net increase in detention. runoff quantity for projects in the watershed of a public water The ordinmace allows for enhanced supply reservoir, criteria for certain watersheds or receiving streams that have a current Neither of the above programs or potential channel erosion specify a calculation method problem. for quantity control. The ordinance also allows the use of basin-specific stormwater studies to modify detention requirements. A design manual is being developed, and this document will contain more specifics on criteria, calculation methods, and designs. Page 2 ISSI,. E C'L RRF. NT COLNTY COMI~RI.:IIENSIVI,: WATER I~RAC'I'ICI,: RESOL'RCI,:S ORI)INANCI,', Water Quality The Runoff Control Ordinance Section 19.3-39 contains the water (chapter 19.1) has water quality quality and best management standards for total phosphorus practice (BMP) provisions. and solids that apply to watersheds of public water The proposed ordinance requires supply reservoirs. Guidelines BMPs to capture and treat the "first- specify use of the Universal flush" of runoff from a development Soil Loss Equation (USLE) for site's ultimate impervious cover pollutant load calculations. (similar concept to "water quality volume" in the state's program). This ordinance also requires build'mg and septic setbacks While BMPs are required in all from streams (100 feet from all areas, requirements are tailored to tributary streams & 200 feet specific water resources areas. For from reservoir flood plains), instance, requirements are more stringent in areas that drain to a For the remainder of the public water supply reservoLr than in County, there are no current areas designated for development. water quality requirements for Section 19.3-25 designates the stormwater. In cases where various water resources areas. stormwater detention waivers are granted by the Planning The Chris Greene Lake watershed is Commission, a water quality included (along with the other water requirement is often substituted supply watersheds) as a "water for detention. BMPs may also supply protection area" based on be required in cases where policies and reports adopted by the there is a stream buffer County and the Rivanna Water & encroachment (see below). Sewer Authority. The design manual will specify total phosphorus as the target pollutant, the Simnle Method - Modified for Charlottesville/Albemarle as the calculation method, and pollutant removal efficiencies for various BMPs. Stream buffers are addressed in the Stream Buffer section below. P~e3 IS.~L'I-: CURRI~:~T COl. NTY (.',OMIqII,.'IIE.~SIVE %~ A'IT:R PR:M 7rlCi,; RESOI :RCES ORI)INANCE Stream Buffers The Water Resources Sections 19.3-41 through 19.3-46 Protection Areas (WP, PA) contain the stream buffer provisions. Ordinance (chapter 19.2) requires 100 foot buffers along In the proposed ordinance, buffers all perennial streams and are a minimum of 100 feet wide, but associated non-tidal wetlands in also extend to flood plains when the County. flood plains are wider than 100 feet in Rural Areas, including water Encroachments of up to 50 feet supply watersheds. into the buffer are allowed through "Water Quality Impact The proposed ordinance also has Assessments;" BMPs are more specific management criteria required to mitigate for vegetation in the buffer. encroachments. "Mitigation Plans" are required for buffer encroachments. The Agricultural buffer reductions ordinance provides more flexibility are administered through the for buffer encroachments in Soil & Water Conservation Development Areas and Areas of District. Buffers can be Infill & Redevelopment than in reduced to 25 feet with a soil & Rural Areas. Buffer exemptions are water conservation plan. Plans similar to the current WRPA have been developed for crop ordinance, but are clarified on land plots along perennial points where there has been streams, confusion in the past. The ordinance contains Stream Buffer provisions will minimal provisions for replace "setbacks" for water supply vegetation management within watersheds, so as to avoid confusion buffers, between setbacks and buffers and to stress the importance of vegetation Stream setbacks in the Runoff management. Control Ordinance (water supply watershed) are Agricultural buffer language has technically not buffers (no been simplified from the current vegetation management WRPA. Crop land will require a 25 specified), but are commonly foot buffer and a soil & water confused with WRPA buffers, conservation plan developed by the District. Page 4 ISSI. F. CLRRENT C()L'N'I'~ COMPREIIENSI~ E ~VA'I'i'.'R I ISRACTIC. E RESOI..:RCES ORI)INANCI,: Regional The Runoff Control Ordinance Section 19.3-40 contains a pro-rata Stormwater (chapter 19.1) requires a pro- share requirement for regional Management rata share contribution in lien stormwater facilities. The of on-site detention if the Subdivision Ordinance will contain project is in the drainage of a more details on the pro-rata share "regional sedimentation basin." program. The Board also adopted a pro- rata share policy for regional stormwater in 1991. Inspection~ E&S inspections are conducted Sections 19.3-19 through 19.3-23 Maintenance& according to the State program (Article II, Division 2) contain Enforcement by the Engineering inspection, maintenance & Department. Enforcement is enforcement provisions for E&S. handled according to state code These sections are very similar to and regulations, the current ordinance, and follow the state program. For permanent stormwater facilities, a "Stormwater Sections 19.3-47 through 19.3-50 Facilities/BMP Maintenance contain the inspection, maintenance Agreement" is required by & enforcement provisions for Engineering Department permanent stormwater facilities. As policy. Agreements assign with the current program, a inspection & maintenance Maintenance Agreement is required responsibilities to a designated for all permanent stormwater/BMP party (e.g., homeowners), and facilities, assigning responsibility are recorded and nm-with-the- for maintenance. The inspection land. and enforcement provisions of the ordinance are more formal than The Engineering Department current practice, and reflect will conduct inspections at the requirements for localities in the request of residents or in State Stormwater Management Act response to compla'mts. & Regulations. The Engineering However, a formal inspection Department is to provide regular program has not been inspection during construction of implemented, facilities and on a scheduled basis thereafter. P~e5 I ISSUE C L RRENT C()L NTY COM PREI IENSI¥ E '~VATER I PI~ACTICE RESOL RCES ORDINANCE Bonding Bonding is required for E&S Sectiou 19.3-15 is the bonding practices and sto~mwater section for E&S, and Sectiou 19.3- facilities through the E&S 30 is the equivalent sectiou for ordinance and Engineering stormwater. Department policies. As with current practice, bonding is required for E&S measures and the construction of stormwater/BMP facilities or practices. Design Standards For E&S practices, the State The design manual that is currently E&S Handbook is the being developed will assist with comprehensive design manual, ordinance compliance, among other development topics. Section 19.3- Various Engineering 6(b) of the ordinance references that Department policies address the Engineering Department must other topics, such as design of develop and periodically update a detention facilities and -design manual. calculation procedures. A comprehensive design manual The design manual will outline is in the formulation stages, required plan elements and An interim design manual for calculations, and will provide design stormwater will be available in ideas for facilities and practices. the near future. The State E&S Handbook will continue to be the design manual for E&S purposes. Page 6 ISSL'E CL. RRENT C()LN'rY COMI~RI~IIENSIVi-: ~,~ ATI-:R I'i,tAC'I'ICE RESOL RCES ORI)INANCI'~. Administration E&S, stormwater detention, The ord'mance designates the and runoff control (reservoir Engineering Department as the protection) are administered by "program authority" to administer the Engineering Department. the ordinance (Section 19.3-6). Adm'mistration will remain similar The Planning Commission can to current practice. waive stormwater detention requirements. A formal waiver ("Exception") process is outlined for stormwater There is no waiver process in ~rovisions. Exceptions are granted the Runoff Control Ordinance. by the Board of Supervisors (Section 19.3-32). Some exemptions will be handled administratively, as listed in sections for E&S (19.3-8), detention (19.3-38), water quality (19.3-39), and stream buffers (19.3-43-19.3- 46), Plan submission and review schedules and Engineering Department approval tune-frames will remain similar to current practice, as governed by the overall development review process and policies. A stormwater/BMP plan will be required as a component of each final site plan and subdivision plat. P~e7 ORDINANCE NO. 98-19.3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, CHAPTER 19.1, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKINGWATER, AND CHAPTER 19.2, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION AREAS AND TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19.3, PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers. Article I1. Protection of Public Drinking Water. and Chapter 19.2, Water Resource ProtectionAreas are hereby repealed and Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is adopted, as follows: By Repealing: Chapter 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers. Article II Protection of Public Drinking Water Chapter 19.2. Water Resource Protection Areas By Adding New: Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Article I. General Sec. 19.3-1. Sec. 19.3-2. Sec. 19.3-3. Sec. 19.3-4. Sec. 19.3-5. Sec. 19.3-6. Sec. 19.3-7. Short title. Enabling authority. Purposes. Rules of construction. Definitions. Designation of program authority; powers and dubes. Saving provision. Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-8. Sec. 19.3-9. Sec. 19.3-10. Sec. 19.3-11. Sec. 19.3-12. Applicability. Determination of land disturbing activity. Determination of erosion impact area. Erosion and sediment control plan: requirements. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan. Sec. 19.3-13. Sec. 19.3-14. Sec. 19.3-15. Sec, 19.3-16. Sec. 19.3-17. Sec. 19.3-18. Agreement in lieu of a plan. Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan. Fees. Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Compliance and enforcement. Sec, 19.3-19. Sec. 19.3-20. Sec. 19.3-21. Sec. 19.3-22. Sec. 19.3-23. Duty to con: ply, maintain and repair. Inspections, Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure, Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure. Penalties and remedies. Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-24, Sec. 19.3-25. Sec. 19.3-26. Sec. 19.3-27 Sec. 19.3-28. Sec, 19.3-29. Sec. 19.3-30, Sec. 19.3-31. Sec. 19.3-32. Sec. 19.3-33. Sec. 19.3-34. Sec. 19.3-35. Applicability. Designation of water resources areas. Overlapping water resources areas. Stormwater management/BMP plan; requirements. Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan. Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety. Amendment of stormwater management/BMP plan. Exceptions. Dedication of stormwater management facilities. Fees. Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection. Sec. 19.3-36. Sec. 19.3-37. Sec. 19.3-38. Sec. 19.3-39. Sec. 19.3-40. Sec. 19.3-41. Sec: 19.3-42. Sec. 19.3-43. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Non-structural measures. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Best management practices. Contribution to regional stormwater management program. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Management of stream buffer. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. 2 Sec. 19.3-44. Sec. 19,3-45. Sec. 19.3-46. Sec. 19.3-47. Sec. 19,3-48. Sec. 19.3-49. Sec. 19,3-50. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Division 3. Compliance and enforcement. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. Inspections. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Penalties and remedies, Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Sec. 19;3-1. Short title. Article I. General. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Comprehensive Water Resoumes Ordinance" or as the "Water Protection Ordinance." Sec. 19.3-2. Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.), the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-2t00 et seq.). Sec. 19.3-3. Purposes. The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the county and the Commonwealth of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of persons living in the county, and is supported by the findings of watershed studies that have been conducted Therefore. the specific purposes of this chapter are to: a. Inhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities. b. Protect the s~fety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land development and redevelopment. 3 c. Protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public drinking water supplies resulting from land development. d. Control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion. e. Maintaintheintegdtyofexistingstream channels and networksfortheirbiological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater. f. Protecttheconditionofstatewatersforall reasonable public uses and ecological functions. g. Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater management facilities and best management practices. h. Facilitate the integration of stormwater management and pollution control with other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan. Sec. 19.3-4. Rules of construction. This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its several purposes. In addition to the rules of construction set forth in section 1-2 the following rules of construction shall apply in the construction of this chapter, unless such application would be contrary to the purposes of this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise: a. All references to any statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard shall be to such statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this ordinance and includes any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition. b. Any reference to "this article," "article I1," or "article II1" shall include references to all applicable references of article I. c. All references to days shall be to calendar days. Sec. 19.3-5. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this chapter: Agreement in lieu ora plan. A written agreement between the program authority and an owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in the 4 construction of a single-family dwelling unit, and which may be executed by the program authority in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan. Agricultural land. Land used for horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries or wayside stands. Agricultural road. A road or portion of a road that is constructed exclusively for access to agricultural land and is located on or serves a lot which is not the subject of a pending or approved preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, zoning map amendment to a non-agriculturalzoning district, or a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture. Best management practice (BMP). A practice or combination of practices that is determined by the state, a designated area-wide planning agency, or the program authority, to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of water pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Board ofsuperv~sors. The Albemarle County board of supervisors. Certified inspector. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of project inspection for erosion and sediment control: or (ii) ~s enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for project inspection for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment. Certified plan reviewer. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of plan review for erosion and sediment control; (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for plan review for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment; or (iii) is licensed as a professionalengineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to sections 54.1-400 et seq of the Code of Virginia Certified program administrator. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of program administrationfor erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for program administrationfor erosion and sediment control and successfullycompletes the program within one year after enrollment, The certified program administrator is referred to herein as the program administrator. 5 Channel A natural stream or human-made waterway. Contiguous nontidal wetlands. Nontidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to a stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and including impoundments of water along a natural stream channel County. The County of Albemarle, Virg nia. County engineer. The directorofthe department of engineering and public works. Crop land. Land which is used for the cultivation of corn and other row crops, orchards, vineyards, and other fruits and vegetables, but excluding land used for silviculture and those crops which consist of a dense grass cover, such as hay land or pasture land. Department of engineering and public works. The Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works. Development. As used in sections 19.3-41 through 19.3-46, the construction or substantial alteration of residentia[, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation. transportation or utility facilities or structures. Division of land. A subdivision, rural division, or family division, as defined in the subdivision ordinance or, in the appropriate context, the land which is the subject of such subdivision, rural division, or family division. Drainage basin. A watershed. Erosion and sediment controlplan. A document which sets forth the major soil and water resources conservation measures that will be implemented to assure that the unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives of this chapter, and which may also include appropriate illustrations in the form of maps or a site plan, and appropriate narratives, such as a soil and water plan inventory and management information with needed interpretations, a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment and any specifications submitted with the plan. Erosion impact area. An area of land - other than: (i) a lot of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet which is used for residential purposes; or (ii) a shoreline where the erosion results from wave action - which is not subject to a current land disturbing activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion which results in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring property or into state waters. 6 Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or walls of the channel, waterbody, or conveyance system and that overflows onto adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage. Floodplain. Land which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of a one-hundred (100) year return interval. Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Impervious cover. A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil, including but not limited to, roofs, buildings, streets, concrete, asphalt¢ and gravel placed over a compacted base, Intermittent stream. A natural stream or portion of a natural stream t~at has a defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation, through near surface groundwater flow. or from springs, and which is not a perennial stream. Land development. A human-madechangeto, or construction on, theland surface that changes its runoff characteristics. For purposes of this chapter, individual lots in a proposed division of land shall not be considered to be separate land developments: rather, the entire division of land shall be considered a single land development. Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth. including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, and as further defined herein: a. If no part of the property is located within the mountain overlay district, a land change is a land disturbing activity if it creates an area of disturbed land of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more; or b. If the property is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain oveday district. a land change is a land disturbing activity only if it creates an area of disturbed land of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more. Linear development. A land development that is linear in nature such as. but not limited to: (i) the construction of electric and.telephone utility lines and natural gas pipelines; (ii) the construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures of a railroad company; and (iii) highway construction projects, Mitigation plan. A pJan, a component of a stormwater management/BMP plan, an erosion and sediment control plan, or an agreement in lieu of a plan, that describes how 7 encroachments into a stream buffer wil be mitigated through runoff treatment, revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management practices. Natural stream. A nontidal waterway that is part of the natural topography, which typically will maintain a continuous, seasonal or intermittentflow during the year, and which is characterized as being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. A constructed channel such as a drainage ditch or swale is not a natural stream. Necessary infrastructure. Components of a site development necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features. These components include, but are not limited to, the following: drainage channels, structures and facilities; best management practices; access roads for emergency yehicles; aQd access roads for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and/or water-dependent facilities. Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution from diffuse sources carried in stormwater runoff, including but not limited to the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic and inorganic substances. Nontidal wetlands. Wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwaterat a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 Code of Federal Regulations § 328.3b dated November 13, 1986. Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a piece of land. As used herein, owner also refers to. in the appropriate context: (i) any other person authorized to act as the agent for the owner; (ii) any person who submits an erosion and sediment control plan or stormwater managementJBMP plan for approval or requests issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing activities or land development to commence; and (iii) any person responsible for complying with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, agreement in lieu of a plan, or an approved stormwater management/BMP plan. Perennial stream, Any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000), except for streams within a developmentarea or area of infill and redevelopment that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into stormwater conveyance 8 channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority. Permit. Any building permit, grading permit, or other permit, including the approval of any site plan or plat, which is required to be issued by any board, commission, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to any development. Permit-issuing department. A department of the county that issues a permit. Plan of development. The process for site plan or plat review to ensure compliance with section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter which is required as a precedent to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on a site or the issuance of a building permit. Plat. A preliminary or final plat, a plat for a rural division, or a plat for a family division, as provided in the subdivision ordinance. Program authority. The departmentofengineeringand publicworks. Exceptwhere the context clearly indicates otherwise, references to the program authority includes any officer or employee of the department of engineering and public works authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to this chapter. Redevelopment. The process of developing land [hat is or has been previously developed. Regional stormwater basin. A facility designed to capture, detain, and/or treat stormwater for a geographicallydefined upstream watershed for the purpose of providing water quality and/or quantity benefits for the region. Such a facility may be constructed by a public agency or by a private person or entity. Residential development. A tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. Runoff. The portion of precipitation which is discharged across the land surface or through conveyances to one or more waterways. Sewage disposal system. A sewerage system or treatment works composed of a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport and/or treatment of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly owned sewerage facility, or publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of sewage. State waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partialiy within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction. Stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement. An agreement that commits the owner or other designated parties to maintain and rnspect stormwater/BMP facilities constructed in accordance with this chapter based on specific terms and conditions of the agreement. Stormwatermanagement/BMPplan. A document [hat describes the controls for the management of the rate of stormwater discharge and best management practices for water quality protection, and which includes a narrative section, a map or site plan, pertinent calculations, and any specifications submitted with the plan. Stream buffer. An area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/~r nontidal wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance of the County of Albemarle. Virginia. Water-dependent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of the stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its operation These facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm sewers: (ii) public water-oriented recreation areas; and (iii) boat docks and ramps. Water resources areas. A group of specific areas within the region that share a unified stormwater philosophy based on existing and anticipated land uses and environmental sensitivities, which are each managed according to specific stormwater goals contained in this chapter. The four water resources areas, which are identified in section 19.3-25, are: (i) development areas; (ii) areas of infill and redevelopment; (iii) water supply protection areas; and (iv) other rural land. Watershed. A defined rand area drained by a river stream or drainage ways, or system of connecting rivers, streams, or drainage ways such that all surface water within the area flows through a single outlet. Zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. 10 Sec. 19.3-6. Designation of program authority; powers and duties. The board of supervisors hereby designates the department of engineering and public works as the program authority. The program authority shall have the following powers and duties: a. The program authority shall administer and enforce this chapter. b. The program authority shall establish reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this chapter, including developing and maintaining for article III a design manual containing information about the content of plans required by article II, calculation methods, maintenance and inspection procedures, and other information to assist with the implementation and enforcement of article I11. The program authgrity shall updatethe design manual periodically. The manual shall be consistent with this chapter and all applicable statutes and regulations. c. Within one year of the date of adoption of this chapter the program authority shall assure that the erosion and sediment control program set forth in article I1 is administered by a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified project inspector. Such positions may be filled by the same person. d. The program authority shall take appropriate enforcement actions to achieve compliance with this chapter, and shall maintain a record of enforcement actions for all active land disturbing activities and land developments. e. The program authority is authorized to cooperate with any federal or state agency in connection with plans for erosion and sediment control or stormwater management. The program authority may also recommend to the county executive any proposed agreement with such agency for such purposes, which agreement shall be executed if at all, by the county executive on behalf of the county. Sec. 19.3-7. Saving provision. The adoption of this chapter shall not abate any pending action, liability, or penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the county under any provision in effect prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, unless expressly provided for in this chapter. Any erosion and sediment control plan, runoff control permit and, to the extent they pertain to stormwater management, any final site plan or plat, approved prior to the date of adoption of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect, and all rights and remedies of the county in enforcing such plans, permits and plats are hereby preserved. Article I1. Erosion and Sediment Control 11 Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-8. Applicability. This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein: a. Except as provided in subsection (b), each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article: 1. Prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land disturbing activity to occur, onhis property; 2. At all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, inc_luding all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in construction work; 3. When notified by the program authoritythat an erosion impact area exists on his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan in order to control erosion and sedimentation: and 4. For the prior construction of an agricultural road, when the owner submits a preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan. an application for a zoning map amendmentto a non-agriculturalzoning district, or an application for a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture for the lot on which the agricultural road is located or serves, if both: (i) the plat, plan or application was submitted within twenty-four (24) months after construction of the agricultural road began; and (ii) the program authority determines that the dimensions and alignment of the agricultural road substantially correspond to the dimensions and alignment of a road proposed on the plat. plan or any document submitted as part of an application. b. This article shall not apply to the following activities: 1. Individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work; 2. Individual service connections; 3. Installation. maintenance, or repair ~)f any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk; provided that the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced; 12 4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system: 5. Surface or deep mining; 6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads, feeder lines and off-site disposal areas; 7. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but not limited to, construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams. desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land. drainage and land irrigation This exception shall not apply to: (i) the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of section 10.1-1100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses as described in section 10.1- 1163(B) of the Code of Virginia, in which case such person shall comply with the prows~ons of this article when grading, excavating or filling; (ii) a land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of roads other than agricultural roads; 8. The construction of agricultural roads, except as provided in subsection (a)(4); 9. Repairorrebuildingofthetracks right-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; 10. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles: and 11. Emergency work to protect Fife, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the program authority. Sec. 19.3-9. Determination of land disturbing activity. The determination of whether an activity is a land disturbing activity shall be made as provided herein: 13 a. The program administrator shall determine whether an activity is a land disturbing activity, including any claim by an owner that the activity is exempt from the requirements of this article. b. Ifa land disturbing activity includes activity at a separate location, including but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, the program administrator may either: 1. Consider the off-site activity as being part of the proposed land disturbing activity; or 2. If the off-site activity is already covered Dy an erosion and sediment control plan, require the owner to provide proof of the approval and to certify that the plan will be implemented in accordance with this article. c. Ifa propertywilt be developed in phases, the determinationofwhetheran activity constitutes a land disturbing activity shall be determined by considering the development of the property as a whole, regardless of the phasing of the development. d. Land disturbing activity of ess [han ten thousand (10,000) square feet on individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from this article if the total land disturbing activity in the residential development is equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. e. Upon the determination by the program administrator that an activity is a land disturbing activity, the owner shall immediately comply with the requirements of this article and this article shall be otherwise immediately enforced. Sec. 19.3-10. Determination of erosion impact area. The determination of whether an eros,on impact area exists on property shall be determined as provided hereto: a. The program administratorshall determinewhether an erosion impact area exists on the property and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this article. The program administrator shall make this determination after an investigation brought either on his own initiative or upon the complaint of any citizen. b, Upon making a determination that an erosion impact area exists, the program administratorshall immediately notify the owner of the property of his determination. The notice may either be informal, by the program administrator speaking to the owner of the property by telephone or in person, or in writing. If the notice is in writing, it shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address of the owner based upon the most recent tax records of the county, or by personal delivery. The written notice shall: (i) instruct the 14 owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval as provided in this article: and (ii) state the date by which the plan shall be submitted. c. U pon receipt of the notice required by subsection (b), the owner shall: (i) not permit any portion of that land to remain in a condition so that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii) immediately comply with the requirements of the notice and this article. d. If informal notice as provided in subsection (b) is first provided to the owner of the property and the owner fails to comply with such notice and subsection (c), the program administratorshall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in subsection (b), e. If good cause is shown, the program authority may grant to an owner an extension of time for which to comply with the requirements of this section and this article. Sec. 19.3-11, Erosion and sediment control plan. Except as provided in section 19.3-13, each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-17, an erosion and sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The plan shall include specificationsfor temporary and permanent controls of soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this article. The plan shall be 'n accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook, including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth n section 50-30-40 of title 4 of the Virginia Administrative Code. c. The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. d. In lieu of subsections (a), (b) and (c), if the land disturbing activity involves land also under the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the Virgima 15 Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such board. e. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. Sec. 19.3-12. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan. Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: a. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19.3-11 and all other req uirements of tills article. b. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shal inform the owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the plan in order for it to be approved c. Except as provided in subsection (d), the program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date the complete application was received by the program authority. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliancewith the requirements of this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing. d. lfthe program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was received by the program authority, the plan shall be deemed approved. e. If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or plat, the program authority shall not approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless and until the site plan or plat is approved as provided by law. For purposes of this subsection, a site plan or plat may be deemed approved by the program authority if its approval is conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan pursuant to this article, and the program authority determines that review and approval of the erosion and sediment control plan will not affect approval of the site plan or plat. The program authority may approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior to approval of a required site plan or plat in the following c~rcumstances: 16 1. To correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive [o excessive sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or other cause beyond the control of the owner: provided, that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of such condition; 2. To clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective cutting of trees, as permitted by law; 3. To install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility and approved by the county as being substantially in accord with the corn prehensive plan, if necessary; 4. To fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other la~vful earth disturbing activity; 5. To clear, grade, fill or engage in similar related activity for the temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials, and to constructtemporary access roads; provided, that in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its previous condition with no significant change in surface contours. The return to previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land disturbing activity on the land which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be shorter; or 6. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with sections 5.1.28 and 10.2.1.18 of the zoning ordinance. Sec. t9.3-13. Agreement in lieu of a plan, If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establish ~ng or modifying a single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided: a. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not part of a division of land: or b. The single family dwelling unit is located within a residential development or division of land and the 'ndividual lots are being developed by different property owners; or c. The single family dwelling unit is located within a division of land which no longer has an active erosion and sediment control plan. 17 d. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration the potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land disturbing activity, and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay district. e. Except as provided in sections 19.3-11 and 19.3-12 all other references in this article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu ora plan was an erosion and sediment control plan. Sec. 19.3-14. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, the~program authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as provided herein: a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan and to determine whether the measures req uired tn the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment. b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state: (i) the method and frequency of such monitoring; and (ii) the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports. Sec. 19.3-15. Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and sediment control plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article, or an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until the erosion and sediment control plan has been approved and certification is submitted. b. Priorto the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuingdepartment shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit- issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-21, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. 18 c. A bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection (b) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virgima, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shal not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-21 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. e. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity in any project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated based u pon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or section thereof. Sec. 19.3-16. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan. The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control plan and require an owner [o submit an amended plan in the following cimumstances: a. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 19.3-20 reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article: b. The owner finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other reasons. the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistentwith the requirements of this article, are agreed to by the program authority and the owner; or c. The land disturbing activitydid not begin during the one hundred eighty (180) day period following plan approval, or ceased for more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still satisfies the requirements of this article and state erosion and sediment control criteria and to verify that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article. 19 Sec. 19.3-17, Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering nto an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $ 40. b. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $ 40. c. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150. d. Major amendment of plan: $100. e. Each inspection: $ 45. Sec. 19.3-18. Review of certain program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is g~ven by the program authority. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. VVhen reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia. c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. 2O Division 2. Corn pliance and enforcement. Sec, 19.3-19. Duty to comply, maintain and repair. Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activitiesto correct an erosion ~mpact area b. Maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems to ensure continued performance of their intended function. c. Comply with all requirements of this article. Sec, 19.3-20. Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land disturbing activity or erosion impact area as provided herein: a. The program authority shal conduct periodic inspections of land disturbing activities and erosion impact areas to determine compliancewith the approved erosion and sediment control plan, and to determine whether such approved plan and permit as implemented are adequate to satisfy the requirements of this article. b. Except as provided in subsection (c), the periodic inspections shall be conducted: (i) during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls; (ii) at least once during every two (2) week period thereafter; (iii) within forty-eight (48) hours following any runoff producing storm event; and (iv) at the completion of the project pnor to the release of any surety. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. Notwithstanding subsection (b), the program authority is authorized to establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliancewith an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Such alternative inspection program shall be: (i) approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board prior to implementation: (ii) established in writing; (iii) based on a system of priorities which, at a minimum address the amount of disturbed project area. site conditions, and stage of construction; (iv) documented by ~nspection records; and (v) maintained and available for public review in the department of engineering and public works. 21 d. The program authority shall have the right to enter upon property subiect to an erosion and sediment control plan for the purposes of conducting an inspection as provided in this section or an investigation pertaining to an erosion or sedimentatio~ complaint. The owner shall be given notice of the inspection Such notice may be either verbal or in writing. e. The fees required for inspections conducted pursuantto subsection (b)(i), (ii) and (iv) are a part of the application fee required by section 19.3-17. The fee required for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(iii) shall be paid by the owner within thirty (30) days of the date shown on the invoice. Sec. 19.3-21. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Upon a determination by the program authority that an owner has failed to comply with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the following procedures shall apply: a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to comply. The notice shall: (i) instructthe owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems; (ii) state specifically the measures needed to come into compliance with the approved plan; and (iii) state a reasonabletime for compliance. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department. b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, [he permit-issuing department may revoke any permit it has issued related to the land disturbing activity, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the program authority, upon finding that such action ~s reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, may take all corrective measures it deems necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall be entitled to recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 19.3-23. 22 Sec. 19.3-22. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of an alleged violation of an approved erosion and sediment control plan or this article from a representative of the prog ram authority, the program authority may issue a stop work order as provided herein: a. If land disturbing activities have commenced without an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the program authority may issue a stop work order requinng that all land disturbing activities on the property be stopped until an approved erosion and sediment control plan or any required permits are obtained. b. Except as provided in subsection (c), if the owner has failed to comply with the corrective measures stated in a notice issued pursuant to section 19.3-21, the~ program authority may issue a stop work order requinng that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken. c. If any failure to comply with this article or the approved erosion and sediment control plan ~s causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands. sediment deposition in waters, or water quality problems within the watersheds of the Commonwealth. the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property, other than corrective measures, be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken without first issuing and serving a notice to comply as provided in section 19.3-21. An order issued pursuant to this subsection shall remain rn effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the program authority or owner for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction, d If the alleged violator does not obtain an approved erosion and sediment control plan within seven (7) days from the date of service of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), the program authority may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved erosion and sediment control plan and all required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the application for approval of the plan or the tax records of the county, or by personal delivery to the owner. e. A stop work order issued pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c) shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the activities who is supervising such activities. 23 f. Upon completion of all necessary corrective actions, an order issued pursuant to this section shall be immediately lifted g. Nothing in this section shall preventthe program authority from seeking any other remedy authorized by this article. Sec. 19.3-23. Penalties and remedies. This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. b. In addition to any criminal penalty imposed under subsection (a), any p~rson who violates any provision of this article may be liable to the county ~n a civil action for damages. c. The county may apply to the circuit court to en;oin a violation or a threatened violation of this article, including the violation, failure, neglect or refusal of any person to obey an order issued pursuant to sections 19.3-21 or 19.3-22, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. Any person violating, failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other judicial remedy obtained pursuant to this article shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation. d. Any owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent danger of being damaged may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation under this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. Such owner shall not apply for injunctive relief unless: (i) he or she has notified in writing the person who has violated a provision of this article, and the program authority, that a violation of a provision of this article has caused, or creates a probability of causing, damage to his or her property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated a provision of this article nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen (15) days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his or her property. Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. 24 Sec, 19.3-24. Applicability. Each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article prior to commencing any land development, or allowing any lan(~ development to occur, on his property, for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional use, and at all times thereafter. Sec. 19.3-25. Designation of water resources areas. n order to better effectuate the purposes of this article, all of the land within the county is hereby designated as being within one or more of the following water resources areas: a. Development areas: Development areas are those areas of land within the county designated as development areas in the land use element of the comp~ehensive plan, and as shown on the official map of the land use element. b. Areas ofinfill and redevelopment: Areas of infill and redevelopment are those areas of land within the county that are: (i) within a development area; and (ii) designated as areas of infill and redevelopmentfor purposes of this article by the board of supervisors, and as shown on the official map adopted showing such areas. The board of supervisors sha] designate such areas based on a finding that existing development has altered severely the natural condition of the area. including the presence of vegetation, and that infill and redevelopmentactivities would serve other community and comprehensive plan goals. c. Water supply protection areas: Water supply protection areas are those areas of land within the county that are within the watershed of a public water supply reservoir, and such areas shall consist of all land within the county that drains naturally to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Totier Creek Reservoir, Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake, and to any impoundment designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water supply reservoir. d. Other rural land: Other rural land consists of those areas of land that are not within a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, or a water supply protection area. Sec. 19.3-26. Overlapping water resources areas. If a land development is or will be on land within both a water supply protection area and another type of water resources area, the requirements of the water supply protection area shall apply. 25 Sec. 19.3-27. Stormwater management/BMP plan; requirements. Each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a stormwater managementJBMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit an application on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-34, a stormwater managementJBMP plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The stormwater management/BMP plan shall include specifications for stormwater management and best management practices 'n order to satisfy the requirementsofdivision 2 ofthis article. The program authority may require the__owner to submit maps, calculations, detail drawings, reports, a listing of all major permit decisions and any other information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. c. For purposes of this section, major permit decisions include, but are not limited to, decisions pertaining to zoning map amendments, special use permits, site plans, plats, grading permits, building permits, erosion and sediment control plans and any permit related to the land development required under state or federal law. Sec, 19.3-28. Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan, Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: a. Within ten (10) days from the receipt of an application, the program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the application for review, which will begin the forty-five (45) day review period set forth in subsection (d), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner ~n writing of the information necessaryto complete the application. If the program authority accepts the application for rewew, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the application to the owner. b. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19.3-27 and all other requirements of this article. c. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to rewew and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan. 26 d. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was accepted for review. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. e. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority shall be subject to the following: 1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan, this article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.2 et seq.), and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 et seq.; 2. The owner shall certifythat all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan: 3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved plan; 4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred. assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the program authority and the recipient of such rights provides the certification required by subsection (e)(2); 5. The program authoritymay require, in conjunctionwith its approval of a plan, that the owner first enter into a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement as provided in section 19.3-47; 6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as provided in section 19.3-48: and 7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program authority shall not be required to g ~ve notice pdor to conducting an inspection. 27 f. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is determined by the program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practices. Sec. 19.3-29. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan, the program authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as provided herein: a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensunng compliance with the stormwater managementJBMP plan and to determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater management. b The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the method and frequency of such monitoring. c. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports. Sec. 19,3:30, Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved stormwater management/BMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved ptan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until such approved plan and certification are submitted. b. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow. letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-49, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. The performance bond or othersuretyshall be provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit by the permit issuing department until sixty (60) days after the requirements of the approved stormwatermanagementJBMPplan have been completed, as determined by the program authority. If approved by the program authority 28 and the count~ attorney, the owner may submit the performance bond or other surety as part of, or included in. any performance bond or surety required in conjunction with a site plan, plat, or the performance bond or surety required by section 19.3-15. c. A performance bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection (b) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater managementfacilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan as a result of the land development. The amount of the bond or otb er surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management facilities: practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan. d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-49 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. e. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved stormwater management/BMP plan, as determined by the program authority, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobtigated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter, compliance with the requirements of this article shall De assured by a maintenance agreement entered into by and between the owner and the program authority, which agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney. Sec. 19.3-31. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan. The program authority may change an approved stormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit additional data identified in section 19.3-27(b) in order to allow the program authority to determine whether any such change to the plan will comply with the requirements of this article. b. The program authority shall conduct its review of the proposed change to the plan as provided in section 19.3-28. c. If the proposed change to the approved plan complies with the requirements of this article, the program authority shall approve such proposed change in writing. 29 d. An owner shall make no changes to an approved plan without first complying with this section. Sec. '19.3-32. Exceptions. Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 19.3- 45, a request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted as provided herein: a. A written request for an exception shall be submitted to the program authority, which shall immediately forward a copy of the request to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The request shall address the factors listed in subsection (c). b. After receiving and considering a recommendation from the program'~uthority, the board of supervisors shall grant or deny a request for an exception within sixty (60) days of the date of the receipt of the request. c. A request for exception may be granted provided that: 1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority for review in accordancewith this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the use of non-structural measures as provided in section 19.3-37 the use of a mitigation plan as provided in section 19.3-46. or by other means; 2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the purposes of this article are satisfied; and 4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an insufficient reason to grant an exception. Sec. '19.3-33. Dedication ofstormwater management facilities. The owner of a stormwater management facility required by this article may offer for dedication any such stormwater management facility, together with such easements and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary, as provided herein: a. Upon receipt of such offer of dedication by the county, the program authority shall make a preliminary determination that the dedication of such facilities is appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall forward its determination 30 to the board of supervisors. Prior to making its determination the program authority shall inspect the facility to determine whether it has been properly maintained and is in good repair. b. The board of supervisors may accept the offer of dedication by adoption of a resolution. c. The document dedicating the stormwater management facility shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county. d. If the dedication of a stormwater management facility is required as a condition of approval of a plat, then the provisions of sections 18.1-59, 18.1-61 and 18.1-66 of the subdivision ordinance shall apply in lieu of this section. e. The owner, at his sole expense, shall provide any document or information requested by the program authority or the board of supervisors. Sec. 19.3-34. Fees. Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a. Plan: $100. b. Major amendment of plan: $ 75. c. Request for exception (section 19.3-32): $190. d. Request for development in a stream buffer or for reduction or modification of stream buffer (section 19.3-45) and mitigation plan (if ~ot part of another document) (section 19.3-46): $ 50. e. Each inspection: $ 45. Sec. 19.3-35. Review of certain program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or m the interpretation of the 31 provisions of this article shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority or, if an exception to the requirements of this article as provided in section 19.3-32 is requested and denied, within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the denial of such exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieve~l person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a_.complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia. c, For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and 'water quantity protection Sec. 19.3-36. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as provided herein: a. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act. and the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act. b. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. c. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical the runoff from the entire land development project area. d. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land development project area and shall be used in all engineering calculations. 32 e. The number, type, and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be designed so as to preserve natural channel characteristics and natural groundwater recharge on a site to the extent practical. Section 19.3-37. Non-structural measures. Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural measures in order to satisfy the requirements of this article as provided herein: a. The program authority may allow non-structural measures to satisfy, partially or in whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted technical literature, are acceptable to the program authority based on its exercise of sound professional judgment, and the program authority finds that the measures achieve equivalent benefit for water quantity and/or quality protection as would otherwise be provided by structural measures. b. Non-structural measures include but are not limited to, minimization of ~mpervious surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer areas. wetland restoration, waste reuse and recycling, and development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff. Sec. 19.3-38. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Each stormwater managemenfJBMP plan shall require that land and receiving waterways which are downstream from the land development be protected from stormwater runoff damage, as provided herein: a. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from flooding, the ten (10) year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the ten (10) year pre-development peak rate of runoE b. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from channel erosion, the two (2) year post-development peak rate and velocity of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the two (2) year pre-development peak rate and velocity of runoff. c. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or hydraulic study has been conducted or a stormwater model developed, the program authority may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) so that runoff from the land development is controlled in accordance with the findings in the study or model, or to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation, and/or Focalized flooding problems. 33 d In addition to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the program authority may requirethat the plan include additional measures to address damaging conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways caused by the land development. e. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes of subsections (a) or (b) shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority. f. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mimng operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code o~f Virginia. 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural horticultural, or forest crops. 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land. including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. 4. Land developmentthat disturbs less than one (1) acre of land area. not including cases where land developmentis to be done in phases and the total land disturbance for all phases is greater than one (1) acre. 5. Land development or a portion of a land development on land which is designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been modified by permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance. 6. Land development or a portion of a land development where the land is adjacent to a flood plain, and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the program authority that off-site ~mprovements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better serve the public interest and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties or stream channels. 7. Any land development related to a final site plan or plat approved by the appropriate governing authority prior to the effective date of this chapter. g. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from some or all of the req uirements of this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The land development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection area or other rural land; 34 2. The program authoritydeterminesthatthe applicationofthe requirementsofthis article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the benefits of the strict application of all of the requirements of this article: 3. All requirementswhich are determined by the program authority to not apply to the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater managementJBMP plan; and 4. The granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the environment. Sec. 19.3-39. Best management practices. Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best mar~agement practices be provided in conjunctionwith or in addition to stormwater management facilities designed for water quantity treatment, as provided herein: a. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff from the entire land development project area and, in particular, areas of impervious cover within the land development, to the maximum extent practicable. b. Best management practices shall be designed to remove the difference between post-development and pre-development total phosphorus loads n cases where post- development loads exceed pre-development loads. c. Calculation methods and expected removal ranges for variousbest management practices shall be included in the design manual maintained by the program authority. d. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisionsoftitle 45.1 of the Code of Virginia; 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agriculturaJ horticultural, or forest crops; and 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land, including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. Sec. 19.3-40. Contribution to regional stormwater management program. 35 Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that the owner contribute to a regional stormwater management program, as provided herein: a. If the land development is located within the watershed of a regional stormwater management program established by the county which requires pro rata share contributions, the owner shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in accordance with any ordinance of the county establishing the program. b. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall relieve the owner of the requirements of section 19.3-38. if the regional program is designed to control the peak rate and velocity of runoff, and/or the requirements of section 19.3-39. if the regional program is designed to provide best management practices. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall not relieve an owner of his responsibility to comply with ~any other requirement of this chapter, except as provided in this section. Sec. 19.3-41. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Except as provided in section 19.3-43, any land subjeCt to this article and each stormwater management/BMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing erosion, filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderating stream temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks, as provided herein: a. If the development is located within a development area or an area of infill and redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist. b. If the development is located within a water supply protection area, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ill the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred (200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment. 36 c. If the development is located within other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams and flood plains associated with these streams. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist:.or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. d. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural land. the stream buffer shall include all perennial streams non-tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams, and a twenty-five (25) foot buffer, measured horizontally from the.. edge of contiguous non-tidalwetlands, or thetop ofthe stream bankif no wetlands exist. Onthese lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof, which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop land. e. Each stream buffershall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land development to the fullest extent possible. f. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-42. the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in secticn 19.3-44, and the additional types of development which may be allowed in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-45, no indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the area affected. Sec. 19.3-42. Management of stream buffer. Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuantto section 19.3- 41 shall be managed as provided herein: a. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control, stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the stream buffer shall be an indigenous riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall be allowed only as provided in subsections (b) and (c). b. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land classified as nontidal wetland: 37 1. Indigenous riparian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by natural succession where it does not exist. 2. Dead. diseased, and dying trees may be removed. 3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined root systems in imminent danger of falling, may be removed where stream bank erosion is a current or potential problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees may have on the stream ecosystem. 4. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species is allowed, provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion. 5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; st~rmwater channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion c. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream bank and outside of nontidal wetlands: 1. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed 2. Silviculturalthinning may be conducted based upon the best available technical advice of a professional forester. 3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and vistas, provided that if trees are removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff. 4. Trees of six (6) inches diameter or greater at breast height shall be preserved. 5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species shall be allowed, provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion 6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control erosion. Sec. 19.3-43. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. The following types of development shall not be required to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: 38 a. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone transmission lines, railroads and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accom~: ished in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. b. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer lines including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies, provided that: 1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be outside of all stream buffer areas; 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and maintain the water or sewer lines; and 3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer lines shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality. c Silviculturalactivities, provided that such activities are conducted in compliance with the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations." Sec. 19.3-44. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the following types of development shatl be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: a. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter may continue at such location. However, nothing in this section authorizes the continuance, repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of such building or structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. b. On-site or regional stormwater management facilities and temporary erosion and sediment control measures, provided [hat: 1. To the extent practical, as determined by the program authority, the location of such facilities shall be outside of the stream buffer; 39 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessaryto provide for construction and maintenance of the facility, as determined by the program authority; 3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality; and 4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the county and are designed and located, to the extent practical, to maintain their water quantity and/or water quality control value according the standards of this article, during flood conditions. c. Water-dependent facilities; water wells: passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation; archaeological activitie~ provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained. Sec. 19.3-45. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 19.3-46. a. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter and which is not within a water supply protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream). b. On a lot which is located within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward. c. On a lot which: (i) is located within a water supply protection area; or (ii) was of record on or after the date of adoption of this chapter and is located within other rural land: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development is determined by the program authodtyto be necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. tn all cases under this subsection (3), the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer. d. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond. or ecological/wetland restoration project. e. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority 4O determines that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot. f. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system must corri~y~with all applicable state laws. g. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there.are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as _permitted in the underlying zoning district, Sec. 19.3-46. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section 19.3-45 shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable requirements of this section, the fee required by section 19.3-34. and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within thirty (30) days that a corn plete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. c. Each mitigation plan shall: 1. Identifytheimpactsofproposed development on water quality and lands within the stream buffer; 2. Ensure that. where development does take place within a stream buffer, it will be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; 3. Demonstrate and assure that development will be conducted using best management practices; 41 4. Specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts: 5. Contain all other information requested by the program authority. d. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria: 1. Whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have been explored and exhausted; 2. Whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; and 3. Whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions. Division 3, Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-47. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater management/BMP plan. each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan. b. Maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management measures required by the plan. as provided herein: 1. The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner, unless such responsibility is transferred to the county or to another governmental entity as provided in section 19.3-33. 2. If an approved stormwater management/BMP plan requires structural or non- structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any plan of development or other development for which a permit is required. The agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county and shall run with the land. If an owner cannot exercise a purchase agreement until a plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided that the agreement is signed 42 and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the development project. 3. The stormwatermanagement/BMPfacilitiesmaintenanceagreementshall be in a form approved by the county attomey and shall, at a minimum: (i) designate for the land development the owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity which shall be permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural or non-structural measures required by the plan; (ii) pass the responsibility for such maintenance to successors in title; and (iii) ensure the continued performance of the maintenance obligations required by the plan and this article. Sec. 19.3-48, Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land subject to an approved s~'ormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. During the installation of stormwater management/BMP measures or the conversion of erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater management/BMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in the approved plan. b. Upon corn pletion of the installation of stormwater management/BMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic ~nspections to determine whether such measures are being maintained as provided in the approved plan or to investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. The inspections shall be conducted at least annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation of the stormwater management/BMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be complete. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. The program authorityshall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by this section. The notice may be either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be required if the program authority and the owner have entered into a right of entry agreement or if the owner has granted to the program authority an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance, as provided in section 19.3-28(e)(7). Sec. 19.3-49. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. 43 Upon a determination by the program authority that theowner has failed to comply with the approved stormwater management/BMP plan. the following procedures shall apply: a The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the owner to take corrective measures immediatelywhen immediate action is necessaryto prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures required to comply with the plan: and (iii) specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department. b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified Jn the notice, the permit-issuing department may revoke any grading, building or other permit for activities involving the land development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the program authority determines, upon completion of a maintenance inspection provided in section 19.3-48, that maintenance or repair of the measures is neglected, or that any stormwater management facility is a danger to public health or safety, it may perform the work necessary to assure that such measures or facilities are not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such work from the owner. Sec. 19.3-50. Penalties and remedies. This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or up to thirty (30) days imprisonment for 'each violation, or both. b. The county may apply to the circuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land lies to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of the provisions of this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. c. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section, the county may bring a civil action against any person for violation of any provision of this article or any term or condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek the imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2000,00) against the person for each violation. 44 d. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any provision of this article, the program authority may provide, in an order issued by the program authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (c). Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on_February 11, 1998. C e~r~, Bdarcl of C~un~ S~...~orvisors I:\GENERAL\SHARE\CLERK\WATE RS.ORD 45 I 1o: TO WHOM ADDRESSED From: Ella Washington Carey. Clerk, CMC ~ Subject: Ordina:ace Adopted by Board on February 1 I. 1998 Date: February 16. I998 Attached for your use is a copy of an ordinance which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11. 1998: (1 An ordinance co repeal Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers. Article II, Protection of Public Dri.nldng Water, and Chapter 19.2. Water Resources Protection Areas. and to adopt Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water Resources. of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Chapter 19.3 establishes standards and procedures for erosion and sediment control, the management of stormwater runoff, and the retention or establishment of stream buffers, to continue, amend, and/or restate those standards and procedures set forth in the chapters, or parts thereof, to be repealed. ~SWC Attachments (1 ~ CC: The Honorable tames L. Camblos IH Rolisa Smith Bill Mawyer David Hirschman File ORDINANCE NO. 98-19.3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, CHAPTER 19.1, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, AND CHAPTER 19.2, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION AREAS, AND TO ADOPTCHAPTER 19.3, PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public DrinkingWater, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resource Protection Areas are hereby repealed and Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is adopted, as follows: By Repealing: Chapter 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers, Article II. Protection of Public Drinking Water Chapter 19.2. Water Resource Protection Areas By Adding New: Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Article I, General Sec. 19,3-1. Sec. 19.3-2, Sec. 19.3-3, Sec. 19.3-4. Sec. 19.3-5. Sec. 19.3-6. Sec. 19.3-7. Short title. Enabling authority. Purposes. Rules of construction. Definitions. Designation of program authority; powers and duties. Saving provision. Article Il. Erosion and Sediment Control Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-8. Sec. 19.3-9. Sec. 19.3-10. Sec, 19.3-11. Sec. 19.3-12. Applicability. Determination of land disturbing activity. Determination of erosion impact area Erosion and sediment control plan; requirements. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan. Sec. 19.3-13. Sec. 19.3-14, Sec. 19.3-15. Sec. 19.3-16. Sec. 19.3-17. Sec. 19.3-18. Agreement in lieu of a plan. Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan. Fees. Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-19. Sec. 19.3-20. Sec. 19.3-21. Sec. 19.3-22. Sec. 19.3-23. Duty to comply, maintain and repair. Inspections. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure. Penalties and remedies. Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. Sec, 19.3-24. Sec. 19.3-25. Sec. 19.3-26. Sec. 19.3-27. Sec. 19.3-28. Sec. 19.3-29. Sec. 19.3-30. Sec. 19.3-31. Sec. 19.3-32. Sec. 19.3-33. Sec. 19.3-34. Sec. 19.3-35. Applicability. Designation of water resources areas. Overlapping water resources areas. Stormwater management/BMP plan: requirements. Review and approval of stormwater managementJBMP plan. Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety, Amendment of stormwater management/BMP plan. Exceptions. Dedication of stormwater management facilities. Fees. Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection. Sec. 19,3-36. Sec. 19.3-37. Sec. 19.3-38. Sec. 19.3-39, Sec. 19.3-40. Sec. 19.3-41. Sec. 19.3-42. Sec. 19.3-43. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Non-structural measures. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Best management practices. Contribution to regional stormwater management program. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Management of stream buffer. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. 2 Sec. 19.3-44. Sec. 19.3-45. Sec. 19.3-46. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Division 3. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-47. Sec, 19.3-48. Sec. 19.3-49. Sec. 19.3-50. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. Inspections. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Penalties and remedies. : Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Article I. General. Sec, 19.3-1. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the ,Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance" oras the "Water Protection Ordinance;" Sec. 19,3-2. Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.), the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-2100 et seq.); Sec. 19,3-3. Purposes. The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the county and the Commonwealth of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of persons living in the county; and is supported by the findings of watershed studies that have been conducted. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter are to: a. Inhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities. b. Protect the safety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land development and redevelopment. 3 c. Protectagainst and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public drinking water supplies resulting from land development. d. Control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion. e. Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater. f. Protect the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions. g. Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater management facilities and best management practices. h. Facilitate the integration of stormwater management and pollution control with other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan. Sec. 19.3-4. Rules of construction. This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed to effectuate, its several purposes, In addition to the rules of construction set forth in section 1-2, the following rules of construction shall apply in the construction of this chapter, unless such application would be contrary to the purposes of this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise: a. All referencesto any statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard shall be to such statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this ordinance and includes any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition. b. Any reference to "this article," "article I1," or "article II1" shall include references to all applicable references of article I. c. All references t° days shall be to calendar days. Sec, 19.3-5. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this chapter: Agreement in lieu o£a plan. A written agreement between the program authority and an owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in the 4 construction of a single-family dwelling unit, and which may be executed by the program authority in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan. Agricultural land. Land used for horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries or wayside stands. Agricultural road. A road or portion of a road that is constructed exclusively for access to agricultural land and is located on or serves a lot which is not the subject of a pending or approved preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, zoning map amendment to a non-agriculturalzoning district, or a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture. Best management practice (BMP). A practice or combination of practices that is determined by the state, a designated area-wide planning agency, or the program authority, to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of water pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Board of supervisors: The Albemarle County board of supervisors. Certified inspector. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of project inspection for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for project inspection for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment. Certified plan reviewer. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of plan review for erosion and sediment control; (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board'straining program for plan review for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment; or (iii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to sections 54.1-400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. Certified program administrator. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of program administration for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for program administration for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the prog ram within one year after enrollment. The certified program administrator is referred to herein as the program administrator. 5 Channel A natural stream or human-made waterway. Contiguous nontidal wetlands. Nontidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to a stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and including impoundments of water along a natural stream channel. County. The County of Albemarle, Virginia. County engineer. The director of the department of engineering and public works. Crop land. Land which is used for the cultivation of corn and other row crops, orchards, vineyards, and Other fruits and vegetables, but excluding land used for silviculture and those crops which consist of a dense grass cover, such as hay land or pasture land. Department of engineering and public works, The Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works. Development. As used in sections 19.3-41 through.19.3-46, the construction or substantial alteration of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation or utility facilities or structures. Division of land. A subdivision, rural division, or family division, as defined in the subdivision ordinance or, in the appropriate context, the land which is the subject of such subdivision, rural division, or family division. Drainage basin. A watershed. Erosion and sediment control plan. A document which sets forth the major soil and water resources conservation measures that will be implemented to assure that the unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives of this chapter, and which may also include appropriate illustrations in the form of maps or a site plan, and appropriate narratives, such as a soil and water plan inventory and management information with needed interpretations, a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment, and any specifications submitted with the plan. Erosion impactarea. An area of land -- other than: (i) a lot of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet which is used for residential purposes; or (ii) a shoreline where the erosion results from wave action -- which is not subject to a current land disturbing activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion which results in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring property or into state waters. 6 Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or wails of the channel, waterbody, or conveyance system and that ovenlows onto adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage. Floodplain. Land which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of a one-hundred (100) year return interval. Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Impervious cover. A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil, including but not limited to, roofs, buildings, streets, concrete, asphalt, and gravel placed over a compacted base. Intermittent stream. A natural stream or portion of a natural stream that has a defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation, through near surface groundwater flow, or from springs, and which is not a perennial stream. Land development. A human-made change to, or construction on, the land surface that changes its runoff characteristics. For purposes of this chapter, individual lots in a proposed division of land shall not be considered to be separate land developments; rather, the entire division of land shall be considered a single land development. Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading; excavating, transporting and filling of land, and as further defined herein: a. If no part of the property is located within the mountain overlay district, a land change is a land disturbing activity if it creates an area of disturbed land of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more; or b. If the property is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain oveday district, a land change is a land disturbing activity only if it creates an area of disturbed land of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more. Linear development. A land development that is linear in nature such as, but not limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines and natural gas pipelines; (ii) the construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures of a railroad company; and (iii) highway construction projectsl Mitigation plan, A plan, a component of a stormwater management/BMP plan, an erosion and sediment control plan, or an agreement in lieu of a plan, that describes how 7 encroachments into a stream buffer will be mitigated through runoff treatment, revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management practices, Natural stream. A nontidal waterway that is part of the natural topography, which typically will maintain a continuous, seasonal or intermittent flow during the year, and which is characterized as being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. A constructed channel such as a drainage ditch or swale is not a natural stream: Necessary infrastructure. Components of a site development necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features: These components include, but are not limited to, the following: drainage channels, structures and facilities; best management practices; access roads for emergency yehicles; and access roads for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and/or water-dependent facilities. Nonpoint soume pollution. Pollution from diffuse sources carded in stormwater runoff, including but not limited to the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic and inorganic substances. Nontidal wetlands. Wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwaterat a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,as defined by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 Code of Federal Regulations § 328.3b, dated November 13, 1986. Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a piece of land. As used herein, owner also refers to, in the appropriate context: (i) any other person authorized to act as the agent for the owner; (ii) any person who submits an erosion and sediment control plan or stormwater management/BMP plan for approval or requests issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing activities or land development to commence; and (iii) any person responsible for complying with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, agreement in lieu of a plan, or an approved stormwater management/BMP plan. Perennial stream. Any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000), except for streams within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into stormwater conveyance 8 channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority. Permit. Any building permit, grading permit, or other permit, including the approval of any site plan or plat, which is required to be issued by any board, commission, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to any development. Permit-issuing department. A department of the county that issues a permit. Plan of development. The process for site plan or plat review to ensure compliance with section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter which is required as a precedent to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on a site or the issuance of a building permit. Plat. A preliminary or final plat, a plat for a rural division, or a plat for a family division, as provided in the subdivision ordinance. Program authotfty. The departmentof engineering and public works. Exceptwhere the context clearly indicates otherwise, references to the program autho/fty includes any officer or employee of the department of engineering and public works authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to this chapter. Redevelcpment. The process of developing land that is or has been previously developed. Regional stormwater basin. A facility designed to capture, detain, and/or treat stormwater for a geographicallydefined upstream watershed for the purpose of providing water quality and/orquantitybenefits for the region. Such a facility may be constructed by a public agency or by a private person or entity. Residential development. A tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. Runoff. The portion of precipitationwhich is discharged across the land surface or through conveyances to one or more waterways. Sewage disposal system. A sewerage system or treatment works composed of a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport and/or treatment of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly owned sewerage facility, or publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of sewage. 9 State waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction Stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement. An agreement that commits the owner or other designated parties to maintain and inspect stormwatedBMP facilities constructed in accordance with this chapter based on specific terms and conditions of the agreement. Stormwatermanagement/BMPplan. A documentthat describes the controls for the management of the rate of stormwater discharge and best management practices for water quality protection, and which includes a narrative section, a map or site plan, pertinent calculations, and any specifications submitted with the plan. Sfrearn buffer. An area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/or nontidal wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Water-dependent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of the stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its operation. These facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm sewers; (ii) public water-oriented recreation areas; and (iii) boat docks and ramps. Water resources areas. A group of specific areas within the region that share a unified stormwater philosophy based on ex~sting and anticipated land uses and environmental sensitivities, which are each managed according to specific stormwater goals contained in this chapter. The four water resources areas, which are identified in section 19.3-25, are: (i) development areas; (ii) areas of infill and redevelopment; (iii) water supply protection areas; and (iv) other rural land. Watershed. A defined land area drained by a river, stream or drainage ways, or system of connecting rivers, streams, or drainage ways such that all surface water within the area flows through a single outlet. Zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. 10 Sec. 19.3-6. Designation of program authority; powers and duties. The board of supervisors hereby designates the department of engineering and public works as the program authority. The program authority shall have the following powers and duties: a. The program authority shall administer and enforce this chapter. b. The program authority shall establish reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this chapter, including developing and maintaining for article III a design manual containing information about the content of plans required by article III, calculation methods, maintenance and inspection procedures, and other information to assistwith the implementation and enforcement of article III. The program authority shall update the design manual periodically. The manual shall be consistent with this chapter and alt applicable statutes and regulations. c. Within one year of the date of adoption of this chapter the program authority shall assure that the erosion and sediment control program set forth in article II is administered by a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified project inspector. Such positions may be filled by the same person. d. The program authority shall take appropriate enforcement actions to achieve compliance with this chapter, and shall maintain a record of enforcement actions for all active land disturbing activities and land developments. e. The program authority is authorized to cooperate with any federal or state agency n connection with plans for erosion and sediment control or stormwater management. The program authority may also recommend to the county executive any proposed agreement with such agency for such purposes, which agreement shall be executed, if at all, by the county executive on behalf of the county. Sec. 19.3-7. Saving provision. The adoption of this chapter shall not abate any pending action, liability, or penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the county under any provision in effect prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, unless expressly provided for in this chapter. Any erosion and sediment control plan, runoff control permit and, to the extent they pertain to stormwater management, any final site plan or plat, approved pnor to the date of adoption of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect, and all rights and remedies of the county in enforcing such plans, permits and plats are hereby preserved. Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control 11 Division 1. Plans. Sec. ~9.3,8, Applicability. This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein: a. Except as provided in subsection (b), each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article: 1. Prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land disturbing activity to occur, onhis property; 2. At all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, including all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in construction work: 3. When notified by the program authoritythat an erosion im ;)act area exists on his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan in order to control erosion and sedimentation; and 4. For the prior construction of an agricultural road. when the owner submits a preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, an application for a zoning map amendmentto a non-agriculturalzoning district, or an application for a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture for the lot on which the agricultural road is located or serves, if both: (i) the plat, plan or application was submitted within twenty-four (24) months after construction of the agricultural road began; and (ii) the program authority determines that the dimensions and alignment of the agricultural road substantially correspond to the dimensions and alignment of a road proposed on the plat, plan or any document submitted as part of an application. b. This article shall not apply to the following activities: 1. Individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work; 2. IndiVidual service connections; 3. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced read, street or sidewalk; provided that the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced; 12 4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; 5. Surface or deep mining; 6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site. roads, feeder lines and off-site disposal areas; 7. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products or related engineering operations including, but not limited to, construction of terraces terrace outlets, check dams, desilting ~3asins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. This exception shall not apply to: (i) the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of section 10.1-1100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses as described in section 10.1- 1163(B) of the Code of Virg]'nia. in which case such person shall comply with the provisions of this article when grading, excavating, or filling; (ii) a land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of roads other than agricultural roads; 8. The construction of agricultural roads, except as provided in subsection (a)(4); 9. Repairor rebuildingofthetracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; 10. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; and 11. Emergency work to protect life limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the program authority. Sec. 19.3-9. Determination of land disturbing activity. The determination of whether an activity is a land disturbing activity shall be made as provided herein: 13 a. The program administrator shall determine whether an activity is a land disturbing activity, including any claim by an owner that the activity is exempt from the requirements of this article. b. If a land disturbing activity includes activity at a separate location, including but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, the program administrator may either: 1. Consider the off-site activity as being part of the proposed land disturbing activity; or 2. If the off-site activity is already covered by an erosion and sediment control plan, require the owner to provide proof of the approval and to certify that the plan will be implemented in accordance with this article. c. If a property will be developed in phases, the determination of whether an activity constitutes a land disturbing activity shall be determined by considering the development of the property as a whole, regardless of the phasing of the development. d. Land disturbing activity of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet on individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from this article if the total land disturbing activity in the residential development is equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. e. Upon the determination by the program administrator that an activity is a land disturbing activity, the owner shall immediately comply with the requirements of this article and this article shall be otherwise immediately enforced. Sec, 19.3-10. Determination of erosion impact area. The determination of whether an erosion impact area exists on property shall be determined as provided herein: a, The program administratorshail determinewhether an erosion impact area exists on the property and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this article. The program administrator shall make this determination after an investigation brought either on his own initiative or upon the complaint of any citizen. b. Upon making a determination that an erosion impact area exists, the program administratorshall immediate!y notify the owner of the property of his determination. The notice may either be informal, by the program administrator speaking to the owner of the property by telephone or in person, or in writing. If the notice is in writing, it shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address of the owner based upon the most recent tax records of the county, or by personal delivery. The written notice shall: (i) instruct the 14 owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval as provided in this article; and (ii) state the date by which the plan shall be submitted. c. Upon receipt of the notice required by subsection (b), the owner shall: (i) not permit any portion of that land to remain ~n a condition so that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii) immediately comply with the requirements of the notice and this article. d. If informal notice as provided in subsection (b) is first provided to the owner of the property and the owner fails to comply with such notice and subsection (c), the program administratorshall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in subsection (b). e. If good cause is shown, the program authority may grant to an owner an extension of time for which to comply with the requirements of this section and this article. Sec. 19.3-11, Erosion and sediment control plan. Except as provided in section 19.3-13, each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a completedapplication on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-17, an erosion and sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The plan shall include specificationsfor temporaryand permanent controls ofsoil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to assure that the land disturbing activitywill satisfythe purposes and requirements of this article. The plan shall be m accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook, including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of title 4 of the Virginia Administrative Code. c. The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. d. In lieu of subsections (a), (b) and (c), if the land disturbing activity involves land also under the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia 15 Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such board. e. Ifland disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. Sec. 19.3-12. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan. Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: : a. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19,3-11 and all other requirements of this article. b. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shall inform the owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the plan in order for it to be approved. c. Except as provided in subsection (d), the program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date the complete application was received by the program authority. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with the requirements of this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing. d. If the program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was received by the program authority, the plan shall be deemed approved. e. If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or plat, the program authority shall not approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless and until the site plan or plat is approved as provided by law. For purposes of this subsection, a site plan or plat may be deemed approved by the program authority if its approval ~s conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan pursuant to this article, and the program authority determines that review and approval of the erosion and sediment control plan will not affect approval of the site plan or plat. The program authority may approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior to approval of a required site plan or plat in the following circumstances: 16 1. To correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of such condition; 2. To clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective cutting of trees as permitted by law; 3. To install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility and approved by the county as being substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan, if necessary; 4. To fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity; 5. To clear, grade, fill or engage in similar related activity for the temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials, and to construct temporary access roads; provided, that in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours. The return to previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land disturbing activity on the land which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be shorter; or 6. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with sections 5.1.28 and 10.2.1.18 of the zoning ordinance. Sec. 19.3-13. Agreement in lieu of a plan. If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided: a. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not part of a division of land; or b. The single family dwelling unit is located within a residential development or division of land, and the individual lots are being developed by different property owners; or c. The single family dwelling unit is located within a division of land which no longer has an active erosion and sediment control plan. 17 d. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration the potential threatto water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land disturbing activity, and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay district. e. Except as provided in sections 19.3-11 and 19.3-12, all other references in this article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of a plan was an erosion and sediment control plan. ' Sec. 19.3-14. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, the program authority may require the owner to monitor and reportto the program authority as provided herein: a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment. b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state: (i) the method and frequency of such monitoring; and (ii) the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports. Sec. 19.3-15. Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and sediment control plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article, or an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until the erosion and sediment control plan has been approved and certification is submitted. b. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit- issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-21, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. 18 c. A bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection (b) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. d. If the program authority~s required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-21 upon the failure of the owner to do so. the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. e. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity in any project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or section thereof. Sec. '19.3-16. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan, The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control plan - and require an owner to submit an amended plan in the following circumstances: a. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 19.3-20 reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article; b. The owner finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistentwith the requirements of this article, are agreed to by the program authority and the owner; or c. The land disturbing activity did not begin during the one hundred eighty (180) day period following plan approval, or ceased for more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still satisfies the requirements of this article and state erosion and sediment control cdteria and to verify that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article. 19 Sec. 19.3-17. Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a. Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $ 40. b. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $ 40. c. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150, d. Major amendment of plan: $100. e. Each inspection: $ 45. Sec. 19.3-18. Review of certain program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authorify's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia. c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. 20 Division 2. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-'19. Duty to comply, maintain and repair. Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when performing, or allowing to be performedi any land disturbing activities or activitiesto correct an erosion impact area. b. Maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems to ensure continued performance of their intended function. c. Comply with all requirements of this article. Sec. 19.3-20. Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land disturbing activity or erosion impact area as provided herein: a. The program authority shall conduct periodic inspections of land disturbing activities and erosion impact areas to determine compliancewith the approved erosion and sediment control plan, and to determine whether such approved Dian and permit as implemented are adequate to satisfy the requirements of this article. b. Except as provided in subsection (c), the periodic inspections shall be conducted: (i) during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls: (ii) at least once during every two (2) week period thereafter; (iii) within forty-eight (48) hours following any runoff producing storm event; and (iv) at the completion of the project pnor to the release of any surety. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. Notwithstandingsubsection (b), the program authority is authorized to establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliancewith an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Such alternative inspection program shall be: (i) approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board prior to implementation: (ii) established in writing; (iii) based on a system of priorities which, at a minimum, address the amount of disturbed project area, site conditions, and stage of construction: (iv) documented by inspection records; and (v) maintained and available for public review in the department of engineering and public works. 21 d. The program authority shall have the right to enter upon property subject to an erosion and sediment control plan for the purposes of conducting an inspection as provided in this section or an investigation pertaining to an erosion or sedimentation complaint. The owner shall be given notice of the inspection. Such notice may be either verbal or in writing. e. The fees required for inspections conducted pursuantto subsection (b)(i), (ii) and (iv) are a part of the application fee required by section 19.3-t7. The fee required for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(iii) shall be paid by the owner within thirty (30) days of the date shown on-the invoice. Sec. 19.3-21. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Upon a determination by the program authority that an owner has failed to comply with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the following procedures shall apply: a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to comply. The notice shall: (i) instructthe owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems; (ii) state specifically the measures needed to come into compliance with the approved plan; and (iii) state a reasonabletime for compliance, The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities: The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department: b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may revoke any permit it has issued related to the land disturbing activity, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the program authority, upon finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, may take all corrective measures it deems necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall be entitled to recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 19.3-23. 22 Sec. 19.3-22. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of an alleged violation of an approved erosion and sediment control plan or this article from a representative of the program authority, the program authority may issue a stop work order as provided heroin: a. if land disturbing activities have commenced without an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all land disturbing activities on the property be stopped until an approved erosion and sediment control plan or any required permits are obtained. - b. Except as provided in subsection (c), if the owner ha~ failed to comply with the corrective measures stated in a notice issued pursuant to section 19.3-21, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken. c. If any failure to comply with this article or the approved erosion and sediment control plan is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands, sediment deposition in waters or water quality problems within the watersheds of the Commonwealth. the prog ram authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property, other than corrective measures, be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken without first issuing and serving a notice to comply as provided in section 19.3-21. An order issued pursuant to this subsection shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the program authority or owner for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. d. If the alleged violator does not obtain an approved erosion and sediment control plan within seven (7) days from the date of service of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), the program authority may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and otherwork on the site. other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved erosion and sediment control plan and all required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served u pon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the application for approval of the plan or the tax records of the county, or by personal delivery to the owner. e. A stop work order issued pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c) shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the activities who is supervising such activities, 23 f. Upon completion of all necessary correctiVe actions, an order issued pursuant to this section shall be immediately lifted. g. Nothing in this section shall preventthe program authority from seeking any other remedy authorized by this article. Sec. 19.3-23. Penalties and remedies. This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 1 m[sdemeanor. b. In additionto any criminal penalty imposed under subsection (a), any person who violates any provision of this article may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages. c. The county may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this article, including the violation, failure, neglect or refusal of any person to obey an order issued pursuant to sections 19,3-21 or 19.3-22, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. Any person violating, failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other judicial remedy obtained pursuant to this article shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation. d. Any owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent danger of being damaged may applyto the circuit courtto enjoin a violation or a threatened violation under this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. Such owner shall not apply for injunctive relief unless: (i) he or she has notified in writing the person who has violated a provision of this article, and the program authority, that a violation of a provision of this article has caused or creates a probability of causing, damage to his or her property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated a provision of this article nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen (15) days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his or her property. Article Ill. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. 24 Sec. 19.3-24. Applicability. Each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article prior to commencing any land development, or allowing any land development to occur, on his property, for residential, commercial industrial or institutional use, and at all times thereafter. Sec. 19.3-25. Designation of water resources areas. In order to better effectuate the purposes of this article, all of the land within the county is hereby designated as being within one or more of the following water resources areas: a, Development areas: Development areas are those areas of land within the county designated as development areas in the land use element of the comprehensive plan, and as shown on the official map of the land use element. b. Areas ofinfill and redevelopment: Areas of infill and redevelopment are those areas of land within the county that are: (i) within a development area; and (ii) designated as areas of infill and redevelopmentfor purposes of this article by the board of supervisors, and as shown on the official map adopted showing such areas. The board of supervisors shall designate such areas based on a finding that existing development has altered severely the natural condition of the area, including the presence of vegetation, and that infill and redevelopment activities would serve other community and comprehensive plan goals. c. Water supply protection areas: Water supply protection areas are those areas of land within the county that are within the watershed of a public water supply reservpir, and such areas shall consist of all land within the county that drains naturally to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Totier Creek Reservoir, Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake, and to any impoundment designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water supply reservoir. d. Other rural land: Other rural land consists of those areas of land that are not within a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, or a water supply protection area. Sec. 19.3-26. Overlapping water resources areas. If a land development is or will be on land within both a water supply protection area and another type of water resources area, the requirements of the water supply protection area shall apply. 25 Sec. 19.3-27. Stormwater management/BMP plan; requirements. Each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a stormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit an application on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-34, a stormwater management/BMP plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The stormwater managementJBMP plan shall include specifications for stormwater management and best management practices in order to satisfy the requirements of division 2 of this article. The program authority may require the owner to submit maps, calculations, detail drawings, reports, a listing of all major permit decisions and any other information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. c. For purposes of this section, major permit decisions include, but are not limited to, decisions pertaining to zoning map amendments, special use permits, site plans, plats, grading permits, building permits, erosion and sediment control plans and any permit related to the land development required under state or federal law. Sec. 19~3.28. Review and approval of stormwater managementJ'BMP plan. Each stormwater managementJBMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: a. Within ten (10) days from the receipt of an application, the program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the application for review, which will begin the forty-five (45) day review period set forth in subsection (d), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the information necessary to complete the application. If the program authority accepts the application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the application to the owner. b. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19.3-27 and all other requirements of this article. c. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan. 26 d. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was accepted for review. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. e. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority shall be subject to the following: 1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan, this article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.2 et seq.), and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 et seq.; 2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan; 3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved plan; 4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred, assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the program authority and the recipient of such dghts provides the certification required by subsection (e)(2); 5. The program authority may require, in conjunctionwith its approval of a plan, that the owner first enter into a stormwater managementJBMP facilities maintenance agreement as provided in section 19.3-47; 6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as provided in section 19.3-48; and 7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program authority shall not be required to give notice prior to conducting an inspection. 27 f. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is determined by the program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practices. Sec. 19,3-29. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of a stormwater managementJBMP plan, the program authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the prograro authority as provided herein: a. Any roonitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the storrowater managementJBMP plan and to determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater roanagernent. b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the method and frequency of such monitoring. c. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports, Sec. 19.3-30. Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved stormwater managernent/BMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing, construction, land developmentand drainage will be done according to the approved plan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until such approved plan and certification are submitted. b. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any corobinationthereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing departroent or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail. after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-49. to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. The performance bond or other surety shall be provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit by the permit issuing department until sixty (60) days after the requirementsof the approved stormwater managementJBMPplan have been completed, as deterroined bythe prograrn authority, Ifapproved bythe program authority 28 and the county attorney, the owner may submit the performance bond or other surety as part of, or included in, any performance bond or surety required in conjunction with a site plan, plat, or the performance bond or surety required by section 19.3-15. c. A performance bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection (b) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater managementfacilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater management/BMP plan as a result of the land development. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater management/BMP plan. d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-49 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. e. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved stormwater management/BMP plan, as determined by the program authority, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter, compliance with the requirements of this article shall be assured by a maintenance agreement entered into by and between the owner and the program authority, which agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney. Sec. 19.3-31. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan. The program authority may change an approved stormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit additional data identified in section 19.3-27(b) in order to allow the program authority to determine whether any such change to the plan will comply with the requirements of this article. b. The program authority shall conduct its review of the proposed change to the plan as provided in section 19.3-28. c. If the proposed change to the approved plan complies with the requirements of this article, the program authority shall approve such proposed change in writing. 29 d. An owner shall make no changes to an approved plan without first complying with this section. Sec. 19.3~2. Exceptions. Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 19.3- 45, a request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted as provided herein: a. Awritten request for an exception shall be submitted to the program authority, which shall immediately forward a copy of the request to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The request shall address the factors listed in subsection (c). b. After receiving and considering a recommendation from the program authority, the board of supervisors shall grant or deny a request for an exception within sixty (60) days of the date of the receipt of the request, c. A request for exception may be granted provided that: 1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority for review in accordancewith this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the use of non-structural measures as provided in section 19.3-37, the use of a mitigation plan as provided in section 19.3-46, or by other means: 2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 3. Reasonableand appropriateconditionsare imposed as necessaryto ensurethat the purposes of this article are satisfied; and 4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an insufficient reason to grant an exception. Sec. 19.3-33. Dedication ofstormwater management facilities. The owner of a stormwater management facility required by this article may offer for dedication any such stormwater management facility, together with such easements and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary, as provided herein: a. Upon receipt of such offer of dedication by the county, the program authority shall make a preliminarydetermination that the dedication of such facilities is appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall forward its determination 30 to the board of supervisors. Prior to making its determination, the program authority shall inspect the facility to determine whether it has been properly maintained and is in good repair. b. The board of supervisors may accept the offer of dedication by adoption of a resolution. c. The document dedicating the stormwater management facility shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county. d. If the dedication of'a stormwater management facility is required as a condition of approval of a plat, then the provisions of sections 18.1-59, 18.1-61 and 18.1-66 of the subdivision ordinance shall apply in lieu of this section. e. The owner, at his sole expense, shall provide any document or information requested by the program authority or the board of supervisors. Sec. 19.3-34. Fees, Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater managementJBMP plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan~ and shall pay alee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below, Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a. Plan: $100. b. Major amendment of plan: $ 75. c. Request for exception (section 19.3-32): $190. d. Request for development in a stream buffer or for reduction or modification of stream buffer (section 19.3-45) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document) (section 19.3-46): $ 50. e. Each inspection: $ 45. Sec. 19.3-35. Review of certain Program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the 31 provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority or, if an exception to the requirements of this article as provided in section 19.3-32 is requested and denied, within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the denial of such exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia. c, For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof: Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection Sec. 19.3-36. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as provided herein: a. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be constructed in compliancewith all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, and the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act. b. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. c. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runoff from the entire land development project area. d. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land development project area and shall be used in all engineering calculations. 32 e. The number, type, and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be designed so as to preserve natural channel characteristics and'natural groundwater recharge on a site to the extent practical. Section 19.3-37. Non-structural measures. Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural measures in order to satisfy the requirements of this article, as provided herein: a. The program authority may allow non-structuralmeasures to satisfy, partially or in whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted technical literature, are acceptableto the program authority based on its exercise of sound professional judgment, and the program authority finds that the measures achieve equivalent benefit for water quantify and/or quality protection as would otherwise be 3rovided by structural measures. b. Non-structural measures include, but are not limited to, minimization of ~mpervious surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer areas, wetland restoration, waste reuse and recycling, and development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff. Sec. 19.3-38. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Each stormwater rnanagement/BMP plan shall require that land and receiving waterways which are downstream from the land development be protected from stormwater runoff damage, as provided herein: a. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from flooding, the ten (10) year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land developmentshall not exceed the ten (10) year pre-development peak rate of runoff. b. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from channel erosion, the two (2) year post-development peak rate and velocity of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the two (2) year pre-development peak rate and velocity of runoff. c. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or hydraulic study has been conducteo or a stormwater model developed, the program authority may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) so that runoff from the land development is controlled in accordance with the findings in the study or model, or to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation, and/or localized flooding problems. 33 d. In addition to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the program authority may require that the plan include additional measures to address damaging conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways caused by the land development. e. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes of subsections (a) or (b) shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority. f. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops. 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land, including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. 4. Land developmentthat disturbs less than one (1) acre of land area, not including cases where land development is to be done in phases and the total land disturbance for all phases is greater than one (1) acre. 5. Land development or a portion of a land development on land which is designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been modified by permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance. 6. Land developmentor a portion of a land developmentwhere the land is adjacent to a flood plain, and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the program authority that off-site improvements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water runoffwould equally or better serve the public interest and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties or stream channels. 7. Any land development related to a final site plan or plat approved by the appropriate governing authority prior to the effective date of this chapter. g. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from some or all of the requirements of this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The land development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection area or other rural land; 34 2. The program authority determinesthat the application of the requirements of this article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the benefits of the strict application of all of the requirements of this article; 3. All requirementswhich are.determined by the program authority to not apply to the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater management/BMP plan; and 4. The granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create a threat to the public health; safety or welfare, or to the environment. Sec. 19.3-39. Best management practices. Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best management practices be provided in conjunction with or in addition to stormwater management facilities designed for water quantity treatment, as provided herein: a. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff from the entire land development project area and, in particular, areas of impervious cover within the land development, to the maximum extent practicable. b. Best management practicesshall be designed to removethe difference between post-development and pre-development total phosphorus loads in cases where post- development loads exceed pre,development loads: c. Calculation methods and expected removal ranges for various best management practices shall be included in the design manual maintained by the program authority. d. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia; 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural; or forest crops; and 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land, including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. Sec. '19.3-40. COntribution to regional stormwater management program. 35 Each stormwater managementJBMP plan shall require that the owner contribute to a regional stormwater management program, as provided herein: a. If the land development is located within the watershed of a regional stormwater management program established by the county which requires pro rata share contributions, the owner shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in accordance with any ordinance of the county establishing the program b. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall relieve the owner of the requirements of section 19.3-38, if the regional program is designed to control the peak rate and velocity of runoff, and/or the requirements of section 19.3-39, if the regional program is designed to provide best management practices. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall not relieve an owner of his responsibility to comply with any other requirement of this chapter, except as provided in this section. Sec. 19.3-41. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Except as provided in section 19.3-43. any land subject to this article and each stormwater managementJBMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing erosion filtering nonpoint soume pollution from runoff, moderating stream temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks, as provided herein: a. If the development is located within a development area or an area of infiil and redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such perennial streams and contiguous nonfidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist. b. If the development is located within a water supply protection area. stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffershall be no less than two hundred (200) horizontalfeet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment. 36 c. if the development is located within other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, nontidat wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains associated with these streams. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. d. On agricultural lands used for crop land. whetherlocated in a developmentarea, an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural lane, the stream buffer shall include all perennial streams, non-tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams, and a twenty-five (25) foot buffer, measured horizontally from the edge of contiguous non-tidalwetlands, or thetop ofthestream bankif no wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof, which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop land. e. Each stream buffershall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land development to the fullest extent possible. f. Except for the activities pertainingto the management of a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-42, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-44, and the additional types of development which may be allowed in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-45, no indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the area affected. Sec. 19.3-42. Management of stream buffer. Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section 19,3- 41 shall be managed as provided herein: a. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control, stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, ind ~genous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the stream buffer shall be an indigenous riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall be allowed only as provided in subsections (b) and (c). b. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land classified as nontidal wetland: 37 1: Indigenous riparian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by natural succession where it does not exist. 2. Dead. diseased, and dying trees may be removed. 3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined mot systems in imminent danger of falling, may be removed where stream bank erosion is a current or potential problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees may have on the stream ecosystem. 4. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species is allowed, provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion. 5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; stormwater channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion. c. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream bank and outside of nontidal wetlands: 1. Dead diseased, and dying trees may be removed. 2. Silviculturalthinning may be conducted based upon the best available technical advice of a professional forester. 3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and vistas, provided that if trees are removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff. 4. Trees of six (6) inches diameter or greater at breast height shall be preserved. 5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species shall be allowed, provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion. 6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control erosion. Sec. t9.3-43. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. The following types of development shall not be required to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: 38 a. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. b. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer lines, including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies, provided that: ' - 1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be outside of all stream buffer areas; 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and maintain the water or sewer lines; and 3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer lines shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality. c. Silviculturalactivities, provided that such activities are conducted in compliance with the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Deparb-nent of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations." Sec, 19.3-44. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the following types of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: a. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter may continue at such location. However, nothing in this section authorizes the continuance. repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of such building or structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. b. On-siteor regionalstormwatermanagementfacilitiesandtemporaryerosion and sediment control measures, provided that: 1. To the extent practical, as determined by the program authority, the location of such facilities shall be outside of the stream buffer; 39 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for construction and maintenance of the facility, as determined by the program authority; 3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality; and 4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the county and are designed and located, to the extent practical, to maintain their water quantity and/or water quality control value, according the standards of this article, during flood cond[itions. c. Water-dependent facilities; water wells; passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation; archaeological activities; provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained. Sec. 19.3-45. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to; and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 19.3-46. a. On a lot which wasof record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter and which is not within a water supply protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream). b. On a lot which is located within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward. c. On a lot which: (i) is located within a water supply protection area; or (ii) was of record on or after the date of adoption of this chapter and is located within other rural land: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development is determined by the program authodtyto be necessaryto allow a reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this subsection (3), the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer. d. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project. e. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority 40 determines that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot. f. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system must comply with all applicable state laws. g. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district. Sec. 19.3-46. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section 19.3-45 shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable requirements of this section, the fee required by section 19.3-34, and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within thirty (30) days that a complete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disa pproval shall be stated in the decision. c. Each mitigation plan shall: 1. Identifythe impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands within the stream buffer; 2. Ensure that, where development does take place within a stream buyer, it will be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptiye to the natural functions of the stream buffer; , / 3. Demonstrate and assure that development will be conducted using best management practices; 41 4. Specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts; 5. Contain all other information requested by the program authority. d. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria: 1. Whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have been explored and exhausted; 2. Whetherthe development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; and 3. Whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions, Division 3. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19,3-47. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater management/BMP plan, each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan. b. Maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management measures required by the plan, as provided herein: 1. The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner, unless such responsibility is transferred to the county or to another governmental entity as provided in section 19.3-33. 2. If an approved stormwater managementJBMP plan requires structural or non- structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any plan of development or other development for which a permit is required. The agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county and shall run with the land. If an owner cannot exercise a purchase agreement until a plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided that the agreement is signed 42 and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the development project. 3. The stormwatermanagement/BMPfacilitiesmaintenanceagreementshall be in a form approved by the county attorney and shall at a minimum: (i) designate for the land development the owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity which shall be permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural or non-structural measures required by the plan; (ii) pass the responsibility for such maintenance to successors in title; and (iii) ensure the continued performance of the maintenance obligations required by the plan and this article. Sec. 19.3-48. Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land subject to an approved stormwater managemenfJBMP plan as provided herein: a During the installation of stormwater managementJBMP measures or the conversion of erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater management/BMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in the approved plan. b. Upon completionoftheinstallationofstormwatermanagementJBMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being maintained as provided, in the approved plan, or to investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. The inspections shall be conducted at least annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation of the stormwater management/BMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be complete. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by this section. The notice may be either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be required if the program authority and the owner have entered into a right of entry agreement or if the owner has granted to the program authority an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance, as provided in section 19.3-28(e)(7). Sec. 19.3-49. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. 43 Upon a determination by the program authority that the owner has failed to comply with the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan, the following procedures shall apply: a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the owner to take corrective measures immediatelywhen immediate action is necessary to prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures required to comply with the plan; and (iii) specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department. b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may revoke any grading, building or other permit for activities involving the hand development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the program authority determines, upon completion ofa maintenance ~nspection provided in section 19.3-48, that maintenance or repair of the measures is neglected, or that any stormwater management facility is a danger to public health or safety, it may perl:orm the work necessary'to assure that such measures or facilities are not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such work from the owner. Sec. 19.3-50. Penalties and remedies. This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or up to thirty (30) days imprisonment for each violation, or both. b. The county may apply to the circuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land lies to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of the provisions of this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. c. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section, the county may bring a civil action against any person for violation of any provision of this article or any term or condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek the imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2000.00) against the person for each violation. 44 d. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any provision of this article, the program authority may provide, in an order issued by the program authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (c). Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on_February 11, 1998. c of C u? -S fe ,sors I:~GEN ERAL\SHARF-\CLERK\WATERS.ORD 45 brinkman M D G 11 Februa~ 1998 Mr. Forest Marshall Chairman. Board of Supervisors Couftty of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall: As a member of the focus group that participated in the creation of the consolidated water resoumea ordinance, t wish to express my support for the ordinance before you for a vote tonight, I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's meeting to deliver my remarks in person. While it is not perfect, this Ordnance has simplified what was a complex maze of regulations, brought the County into compliance with broader State regulations, and preserved the essential elements of context and judgement at the local level in the review and approval of projects that rarely fit into a neat regulatory "box". I also urge the Board to recognize l~e efforts of Dark:! Hirschman es the leader and the vision behind this ordinance. Dave is one of those few individuals with a good understanding of all of the issues, one who is willing to take rational positions baesd on what is in the best overall interest of the citizens of Albemarle County. What our focus group did pales in comparison to the commitment, effor~ and frustration Dave faced in dealing with so many different interests in the community, while still ~'ying to make sense of a fairly complex body of regulations, Dave iea tremendous asset to the environment and to this community. He should be recognized for his efforts. With beet regards, BRINKMAN MDC MRM/Im eagtte of Women Voters of Charlottesville - Albemarle I LWV t 1928 Arlington Blvd., Room 105, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 970-1707 Phone (804) 971-1708 Fax 11 February 1998 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors RE: Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance The League strongly supports this proposed ordinance be- cause it will simplify the administration ot the County's water ordinances and programs, do away with duplication, and be easier for applicants as well as the general public to understand. And it is long overdue. For instance, as long ~go as 1982, the ~ ~~ ~ement Study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir stated that: "presently there is not a definite institutional approach for the effective inspec- tion or maintenance of on-site best management practices such as detention basins or infiltration controls." In the 16 years since, and contrary to what the public under- stood, there has been no official mnspection or mainten- ance of the hundreds of projects whose BMP's were desi§n- ed to reduce pollutin~ runoff to our reservoirs. This ordinance clearly establishes where the responsibi- lity for inspection and maintenance lies and provides hope that at long last effective implementation of this ordinance will decrease siltation and add ~ few more years to our troubled Rivanna Reservoir. We all owe a lot to David Hirschman, Natural Resources Manager, who, a number of years ago, took on the daunt- ing task of pulling together the various water-related ordinances and programs. It will now be up to all of us to see that the "Programs Authority" the Engineering Department, has adequate staff and financial support to do its job. We need that ordinance NOW. Refinements of issues ~n regard to fees and inspection schedules can be worked out over time. We urge you to adopt this ordinance which %s so desperately needed. Thank you. ~a ~n~partisan ~rganizati~n dedicated t~ the pr~m~ti~n ~f inf~rmed a~l ~ctive partici~ati~n ~f citize~ ~ g~ ~ ~ DRAFT: February 3, 1998 ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, CHAPTER 19.1 WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, AND CHAPTER 19.2. WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION AREAS, AND TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19.3, PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers. Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resource Protection Areas are hereby repealed and Chapter 19.3 Protection of Water Resources. of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is adopted, as follows: By Repealing: Chapter 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers, Article II. Protection of Public Drinking Water Chapter 19.2. Water Resource Protection Areas By Adding New: Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Article I, General Sec. 19.3-1. Sec. 19.3-2. Sec. 19.3-3. Sec. 19.3-4. Sec. 19.3-5. Sec. 19.3-6. Sec. 19.3-7~ Short title. Enabling authority. Purposes. Rules of construction. Definitions. Designation of program authority; powers and duties. Saving provision. Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control Division 1. Plans, Sec. 19.3-8. Sec. 19.3-9. Sec. 19.3-10. Sec. 19.3-11. Applicability. Determination of land disturbing activity. Determination of erosion impact area Erosion and sediment control plan; requirements. DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-12. Sec. 19.3-13. Sec. 19.3-14, Sec. 19.3-15. Sec. 19,3-16. Sec. 19.3-17. Sec. 19.3-18. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan Agreement in lieu of a plan, Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan. Fees, Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-19. Sec. 19.3-20. Sec. 19.3-21. Sec. 19.3-22. Sec. 19.3-23. Duty to comply, maintain and repair. I nsoections. Determination of noncompliance with plan; proce(~ure. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure, Penalties and remedies, Article II1. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-24. Sec 19.3-25. Sec. 19.3-26. Sec. 19.3-27. Sec 19.3-28. Sec. 19.3-29. Sec. 19.3-30, Sec, 19.3-31. Sec. 19.3-32. Sec. 19.3-33. Sec. 19.3-34. Sec. 19.3-35. Applicability. Designation of water resources areas. Overlapping water resources areas. Stormwater management/BMP plan; requirements. Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan. Monitoring and reporting. Issuance of permit; surety. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan. Exceptions. Dedication of stormwater management facilities. Fees, Review of certain program authority actions. Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection. Sec. 19.3-36, Sec. 19.3-37, Sec. 19.3-38. Sec. 19.3-39. Sec. 19.3-40, Sec. 19.3-41. Sec. 19.3-42. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Non-structural measures. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Best management practices. Contribution to regional stormwater management program. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Management of stream buffer. 2 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-43. Sec. 19.3-44. Sec. 19.3-45. Sec. 19.3-46. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Division 3. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-47. Sec. 19.3-48. Sec. 19.3-49. Sec. 19.3-50. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. nspections. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Penalties and remedies. Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources Article I. General. Sec. 19.3-1. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance" or as the "Water Protection Ordinance." Sec. 19.3-2. Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.), the Virgima Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10 1-2100 et seq.). Sec. 19.3-3. Purposes. The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the county and the Commonwealth of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of persons living in the county, and is supported by the findings of watershed studies that have been conducted. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter are to: a. nhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities. 3 DRAFT: February 3, t998 b. Protect the safety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land development and redevelopment. c. Protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public drinking water supplies resulting from land development. d. Control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion. e. Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater. f. Protect the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions. g. Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater management facilities and best management practices. h. Facilitate the integration of stormwater management and pollution control with other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan. Sec. 19.3-4. Rules of construction. This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its several purposes. In addition to the rules of construction set forth in section 1-2, the following rules of construction shall apply in the construction of this chapter, unless such application would be contrary to the purposes of this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise: a. All references to any statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard shall be to such statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this ordinance and includes any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition. b. Any reference to "this article," "article I1," or "article Ill" shall include references to all applicable references of article I. c. All references to days shall be to calendar days. 4 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-5. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this chapter: Agreement in lieu ora plan. A written agreement between the program authority and an owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in the construction of a single-family dwelling unit, and which may be executed by the program authority in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan. Agricultural land. Land used for horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops: the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies nursenes or wayside stands. Agricultural road. A road or portion of a road that is constructed exclusively for access to agricultural land and is located on or serves a lot which is not the subject of a pending or approved preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, zoning map amendment to a non-agricultural zoning district, or a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture. Best management practice (BMP). A practice or combination of practices that is determined by the state, a designated area-wide planning agency, or the program authority= to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of water pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Board of supervisors. The Albemarle County board of supervisors. Certified inspector. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of project inspection for erosion and sediment control: or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for project inspection for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment. Certified plan reviewer. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of plan review for erosion and sediment control; (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for plan review for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment: or (iii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to sections 54.1-400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. 5 DRAFT: February 3, '1998 Certified program administrator. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of program administration for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water conservation board's training program for program administration for erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment. The certified program administrator is referred to herein as the program administrator. Channel A natural stream or human-made waterway. Contiguous nontidal wetlands. Nontidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to a stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and including impoundments of water along a natural stream channel. County. The County of Albemarle, Virginia. County engineer. The director of the department of engineering and public works. Crop land. Land which is used for the cultivation of corn and other row crops, orchards vineyards, and other fruits and vegetables, but excluding land used for silviculture and those crops which consist of a dense grass cover, such as hay land or pasture land. Department of engineering and public works. The Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works. Development. As used in sections 19.3-41 through 19.3-46. the construction or substantial alteration of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation or utility facilities or structures. Division of land. A subdivision, rural division, or family division, as defined in the subdivision ordinance or. in the appropriate context, the land which is the subject of sucn subdivision, rural division, or family division. Drainage basin. A watershed. Erosion and sediment control plan. A document which sets forth the major soil and water resources conservation measures that will be implemented to assure that the unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives of this chapter, and which may also include appropriate illustrations in the form of maps or a site plan, and appropriate narratives, such as a soil and water plan inventory and 6 DRAFT: February 3~ 1998 management information with needed interpretations, a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment, and any specifications submitted with the plan. Erosion impact area. An area of land -- other than: (i) a lot of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet which is used for residential purposes; or (ii) a shoreline where the erosion results from wave action -- which is not subject to a current land disturbing activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion which results in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring property or into state waters. Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or walls of the channel, waterbody, or conveyance system and that overflows onto adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage. Floodplain. Land which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of a one-hundred (100) year return interval Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Impervious cover. A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil including but not limited to. roofs, buildings, streets, concrete, asphalt, and gravel placed over a compacted base. Intermittent stream. A natural stream or portion of a natural stream that has a defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation. through near surface groundwater flow, or from springs, and which is not a perennial stream. Land development. A human-made change to, or construction on the land surface that changes its runoff characteristics. For purposes of this chapter, individual lots in a proposed division of land shall not be considered to be separate land developments; rather, the entire division of land shall be considered a single land development. Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, and as further defined herein: a. If no part of the property is located within the mountain overlay district, a land change is a land disturbing activity if it creates an area of disturbed land often thousand (10,000) square feet or more; or 7 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 b. If the property is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, a land change is a land disturbing activity only if it creates an area of disturbed land of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more. Linear development. A land development that is linear in nature such as. but not limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines and natural gas pipelines; (ii) the construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures of a railroad company; and (iii) highway construction projects. Mitigation plan. A plan, a component of a stormwater managementJBMP plan. an erosion and sediment control plan, or an agreement in lieu of a plan, that describes how encroachments into a stream buffer will be mitigated through runoff treatment, revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management practices. Natural stream. A nontidal waterway that is part of the natural topography, which typically will maintain a continuous, seasonal or intermittent flow during the year, and which is characterized as being ~rregular in cross-section with a meandering course. A constructed channel such as a drainage ditch or swale is not a natural stream. Necessary infrastructure. Components of a site development necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features. These components include but are not limited to, the following: drainage channels, structures and facilities; best management practices; access roads for emergency vehicles; and access roads for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and/or water- dependent facilities. Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution from diffuse sources carried in stormwater runoff, including but not limited to the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic and inorganic substances. Nontidal wetlands. Wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are ~nundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 Code of Federal Regulations § 328.3b, dated November 13, 1986. Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate there~n, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a piece of land. As used herein, owneralso refers to, in the appropriate context: (i) any other person 8 DRAFT:February3,1998 authorized to act as the agent for the owner; (ii) any person who submits an erosion and sediment control plan or stormwater management/BMP plan for approval or requests issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing activities or land development to commence; and (iii) any person responsible for complying with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, agreement in lieu of a plan, or an approved stormwater management/BMP plan Perennial stream. Any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24.000), except for streams within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment that have been p~ped or converted legally and intentionally into stormwater conveyance channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority. Permit. Any building permit, grading permit, or other permit, including the approval of any site plan or plat, which is required to be issued by any board, commission officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to any development. Permit-issuing department. A department of the county that issues a permit. Plan of development. The process for site plan or plat review to ensure compliance with section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter which is required as a precedent to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on a site or the issuance of a building permit. Plat. A preliminary or final plat, a plat for a rural division, or a plat for a family division, as provided in the subdivision ordinance. Program authority. The department of engineering and public works. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, references to the program authority includes any officer or employee of the department of engineering and public works authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to this chapter. Redevelopment. The process of developing land that is or has been previously developed. Regional stermwaterbasin. A facility designed to capture, detain, and/or treat stormwater for a geographically defined upstream watershed for the purpose of providing water quality and/or quantity benefits for the region. Such a facility may be constructed by a public agency or by a private person or entity. 9 DRAFT:February3,1998 Residential development. A tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. Runoff. The portion of precipitation which is discharged across the land surface or through conveyances to one or more waterways. Sewage disposal system. A sewerage system or treatment works corn posed of a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport and/or treatment of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly owned sewerage facility, or publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of sewage. State waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction. Stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement. An agreement that commits the owner or other designated parties to maintain and inspect stormwater/BMP facilities constructed in accordance with this chapter based on specific terms and conditions of the agreement. Stormwatermanagement/BMP plan. A document that describes the controls for the management of the rate of stormwater discharge and best management practices for water quality protection, and which includes a narrative section, a map or site plan, pertinent calculations, and any specifications submitted with the plan. Stream buffer. An area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/or nontidal wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance of the County of Albemarle. Virginia. Water-dependent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of the stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its operation These facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm sewers; (ii) public water-oriented recreation areas; and (iii) boat docks and ramps. Water resources areas. A group of specific areas within the region that share a unified stormwater philosophy based on existing and anticipated land uses and 10 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 environmental sensitivities, which are each managed according to specific stormwater goals contained in this chapter. The four water resources areas, which are identified in section 19.3-25, are: (i) development areas; (ii) areas of infill and redevelopment; (iii) water supply protection areas; and (iv) other rural land. Watershed. A defined land area drained by a river, stream or drainage ways, or system of connecting rivers, streams, or drainage ways such that all surface water within the area flows through a single outlet. Zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Sec. 19.3-6. Designation of program authority; powers and duties. The board of supervisors hereby designates the department of engineenng and public works as the program authority. The program authority shall have the following powers and duties: a. The program authority shall administer and enforce this chapter. b. The program authority shall establish reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this chapter, including developing and maintaining for article Ill a design manual containing information about the content of plans required by article III, calculation methods, maintenance and inspection procedures, and other information to assist with the implementation and enforcement of article II1. The F~rogram authority shall update the design manual periodically. The manual shall be consistent with this chapter and all applicable statutes and regulations. c. Within one year of the date of adoption of this chapter the program authority shall assure that the erosion and sediment control program set forth in article II is administered by a certified program adm[nistrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified project inspector. Such positions may be filled by the same person. d The program authority shall take appropriate enforcement actions to achieve compliance with this chapter, and shall maintain a record of enforcement actions for all active land disturbing activities and land developments. e. The program authority is authorized to cooperate with any federal or state agency in connection with plans for erosion and sediment control or stormwater management. The program authority may also recommend to the county executive any proposed agreement with such agency for such purposes, which agreement shall be executed, if at all, by the county executive on behalf of the county. 11 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-7. Saving provision. The adoption of this chapter shall not abate any pending action, liability, or penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the county under any provision in effect prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, unless expressly provided for in this chapter. Any erosion and sediment control plan, runoff control permit and, to the extent they pertain to stormwater management, any final site plan or plat, approved prior to the date of adoption of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect= and all rights and remedies of the county in enforcing such plans, permits and plats are hereby preserved. Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control Division '1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-8. Applicability. This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein: a Except as provided in subsection (b), each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article: 1. Prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land disturbing activity to occur, on his property; 2. At all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, including all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in construction work; 3. When notified by the program authority that an erosion impact area exists on his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan in order to control erosion and sedimentation; and 4. For the prior construction of an agricultural road, when the owner submits a preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, an application for a zoning map amendment to a non-agricultural zoning district, or an application for a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture for the lot on which the agricultural road is located or serves, if both: (i) the plat, plan or application was submitted within twenty-four (24) months after construction of the agricultural road began; and (ii) the program authority determines that the dimensions and al [gnment of the agricultural road substantially correspond to the dimensions and alignment of a road proposed on the plat, plan or any document submitted as part of an application. 12 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 b, This article shall not apply to the following activities: 1 Individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work: 2. Individual service connections; 3. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road street or sidewalk; provided that the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced: 4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; 5. Surface or deep mining; 6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site roads, feeder lines and off-site disposal areas; 7. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but not limited to, construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. This exception shall not apply to: (i) the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of section 10.1-1100 et seq. of the Code of Virgima or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses as described in section 10.1-1163(B) of the Code of Virginia, in which case such person shall comply with the provisions of this article when grading, excavating, or filling; (ii) a land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of roads other than agricultural roads: 8. The construction of agricultural roads, except as provided in subsection (a)(4); 9. Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; 10. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; and 13 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 11. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provide(~ that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the program authority. Sec. 19.3-9. Determination of land disturbing activity. The determination of whether an activity is a land disturbing activity shall be made as provided herein: a. The program administrator shall determine whether an activity is a land disturbing activity, including any claim by an owner that the activity is exempt from the requirements of this article. b. If a land disturbing activity includes activity at a separate location, including but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, the program administrator may either: 1 Consider the off-site activity as being part of the proposed land disturbing activity; or 2. If the off-site activity is already covered by an erosion and sediment control plan, require the owner to provide proof of the approval and to certify that the plan will be implemented in accordance with this article. c. If a property will be developed in phases, the determination of whether an activity constitutes a land disturbing activity shall be determined by considering the development of the property as a whole, regardless of the phasing of the development. d. Land disturbing activity of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet on individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from this article if the total land disturbing activity in the residential development is equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. e. Upon the determination by the program administrator that an activity is a land disturbing activity, the owner shall immediately comply with the requirements of this article and this article shall be otherwise immediately enforced. Sec. 19.3-10. Determination of erosion impact area. The determination of whether an erosion impact area exists o~ property shall be determined as provided herein: 14 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 a. The program administrator shall determine whether an erosion impact area exists on the property and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this article. The prog ram administrator shall make this determination after an investigation brought either on his own initiative or u pon the complaint of any citizen. b. U pon making a determination that an erosion impact area exists, the program administrator shall immediately notify the owner of the property of his determination. The notice may either be informal, by the prog ram administrator speaking to the owner of the property by telephone or in person, or in writing. If the notice is in writing, it shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address of the owner based upon the most recent tax records of the county, or by personal delivery. The written notice shall: (i) instruct the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval as provided in this article: and (ii) state the date by which the plan shall be submitted. c. Upon receipt of the notice required by subsection (b), the owner shall: (i) not permit any portion of that land to remain in a condition so that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii) immediately comply with the requirements of the notice and this article. d. If informal notice as provided in subsection (b) is first provided to the owner of the property and the owner fails to corn ply with such notice and subsection (c), the program administrator shall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in subsection (b). e. If good cause is shown, the program authority may g rant to an owner an extension of time for which to comply with the requirements of this section and this article. Sec. 19.3-11. Erosion and sediment control plan. Except as provided in section 19.3-13 each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-17, an erosion and sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem 15 DRAFT:February3,1998 reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this article. The plan shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook, including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth i~ section 50-30-40 of title 4 of the Virginia Administrative Code. c. The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. d. In lieu of subsections (a), (b) and (c), if the land disturbing activity involves land also under the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such board. e. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. Sec. 19.3-12. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan. Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: a. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19.3-11 and all other req uirements of this article. b. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shall inform the owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the plan in order for it to be approved. c. Except as provided in subsection (d), the program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date the complete application was received by the program authority. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with the requirements of this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for DRAFT:February3,1998 mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing. d. If the program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was received by the program authority, the plan shall be deemed approved. e If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or plat, the program authority shall not approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless and until the site plan or plat is approved as provided by law. For purposes of this subsection, a site plan or plat may be deemed approved by the program authority if its approval is conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan pursuant to this article, and the program authority determines that review and approval of the erosion and sediment control plan will not affect approval of the site plan or plat. The program authority may approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior to approval of a required site plan or plat in the following circumstances: 1. To correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provide(~, that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of such condition; 2. To clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective cutting of trees, as permitted by law; 3. To install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility and approved by the county as being substantially m accord with the comprehensive plan. if necessary; 4. To fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity; 5. To clear, grade, fill or engage ~n similar related activity for the temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials, and to construct temporary access roads; provided, that in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours. The return to previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land disturbing activity on the land which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be shorter; or 17 DRAFT: February 3, '1998 6. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas ~n accordance with sections 5.1.28 and 10.2.1.18 of the zoning ordinance. Sec. 19.3-13. Agreement in lieu of a plan. If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit: provided: a. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not part of a division of land; or b. The single family dwelling unit is located within a residential development or division of land, and the individual lots are being developed by different property owners; or c. The single family dwelling unit is located within a division of land which no longer has an active erosion and sediment control plan. d. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration the potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land disturbing activity, and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay district. e. Except as provided in sections 19.3-11 and 19.3-12 all other references in this article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of a plan was an erosion and sediment control plan. Sec. 19.3-14. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, the program authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as provided herein: a. Any monitoring conducted sha] oe for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment. 18 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state: (i) the method and frequency of such monitoring; and (ii) the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports. Sec. 19.3-15. Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and sediment control plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article or an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until the erosion and sediment control plan has been approved and certification is submitted. b. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken oy the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-21, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. c. A bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection lb) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia. and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan. d. [f the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-21 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. e. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity in any project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or 19 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 terminated based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or section thereof. Sec. 19.3-16. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan, The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control plan and require an owner to submit an amended plan in the following cimumstances: a. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 19.3-20 reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article: b. The owner finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this article, are agreed to by the program authority and the owner; or c. The land disturbing activity did not begin during the one hundred eighty (180) day period following plan approval, or ceased for more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still satisfies the requirements of this article and state erosion and sediment control criteria and to verify that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article. Sec. 19.3-17. Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shalJ pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a. Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $ 40. b. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $ 40. c. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150. d. Major amendment of plan: $100. e. Each inspection: $ 45. 20 DRAFT:February3,1998 Sec. 19.3-18. Review of certain program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the prows~ons of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of su pervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia. c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. Division 2. Compliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-19. Duty to comply, maintain and repair. Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activities to correct an erosion impact area. b. Maintain and repa,r all erosion and sediment control structures and systems to ensure continued performance of their intended function. c. Comply with all requirements of this article. Sec. 19.3-20. Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land disturbing activity or erosion impact area as provided herein: 21 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 a. The program authority shall conduct periodic inspections of land disturbing activities and erosion im pact areas to determine compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan. and to determine whether such approved plan and permit as implemented are adequate to satisfy the requirements of this article. b. Except as provided in subsection (c), the periodic inspections shall be conducted: (i) dudng or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls; (ii) at least once dudng every two (2) week period thereafter; /iii) within forty- eight (48) hours following any runoff producing storm event; and (iv) at the completion of the project prior to the release of any surety. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. Notwithstanding subsection (b), the program authority is authorized to establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliance with an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Such alternative inspection program shall be: (i) approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board prior to implementation; (ii) established in writing; (iii) based on a system of priorities which, at a minimum, address the amount of disturbed project area site conditions, and stage of construction: (iv) documented by inspection records; and (v) maintained and available for public review in the department of engineering and public works. d. The program authority shall have the right to enter u pon property subject to an erosion and sediment control plan for the purposes of conducting an inspection as provided in this section or an investigation pertaining to an erosion or sedimentation complaint. The owner shall be given notice of the inspection. Such notice may be either verbal or in writing. e. The fees required for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(i), (ii) and (iv) are a part of the application fee required by section 19.3-17. The fee required for inspections conducted pursuant to subse.~tion (b)(iii) shall be paid by the owner within thirty (30) days of the date shown on the invoice. Sec. 19.3-21. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. U pon a determination by the program comply with an approved erosion and sedimE shall apply: a. The program authority shall immed notice to comply. The notice shall: (i) instrucl 22 ~uthority that an owner has failed to nt control plan, the following procedures ately serve upon the owner a written the owner to take corrective measures DRAFT: February 3, 1998 immediately when immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems: Iii) state specifically the measures needed to come into compliance with the approved plan; and (iii) state a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department. b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may revoke any permit it has issued related to the land disturbing activity, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice the program authority, upon finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, may take all corrective measures it deems' necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall be entitled to recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 19.3-23. Sec, 19.3-22. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of an alleged violation of an approved erosion and sediment control plan or this article from a representative of the program authority, the program authority may issue a stop work order as provided herein: a. If land disturbing activities have commenced without an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all land disturbing activities on the property be stopped until an approved eres~on and sediment control plan or any required permits are obtained. b. Except as provided in subsection (c), if the owner has failed to comply with the corrective measures stated in a notice issued pursuant to section 19.3-21 the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken. c. If any failure to comply with this article or the approved erosion and sediment control plan is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands, sediment deposition in waters, or water quality problems within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property, other than corrective 23 DRAFT:Februa~ 3,1998 measures, be stopped until the specified corrective measures are taken without first issuing and serving a notice to comply as provided in section 19.3-21. An order issued pursuant to this subsection shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the program authority or owner for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. d. If the alleged violator does not obtain an approved erosion and sediment control plan within seven (7) days from the date of service of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), the program authority may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved erosion and sediment control plan and all required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the application for approval of the plan or the tax records of the county, or by personal delivery to the owner. e. A stop work order issued pursuant to subsections (a), (b) or (c) shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the activities who is supervising such activities. f. U pon completion of all necessary corrective actions, an order issued pursuant to this section shall be immediately lifted. g. Nothing in this section shal prevent the program authority from seeking any other remedy authorized by this article. Sec. 19.3-23. Penalties and remedies. This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. b. In addition to any criminal penalty imposed under subsection (a), any person who violates any provision of this article may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages. c. The county may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this article, including the violation, failure, neglect or refusal of any person to obey an order issued pursuant to sections 19.3-21 or 19.3-22, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. Any person violating, failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other judicial remedy obtained 24 DRAFT:February3,1998 pursuant to this article shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation. d. Any owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent danger of being damaged may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation under this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. Such owner shall not apply for injunctive relief unless: (i) he or she has notified in writing the person who has violated a provision of this article, and the program authority, that a violation of a provision of this article has caused, or creates a probability of causing, damage to his or her property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated a provision of this article nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen (15) days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his or her property. Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Division 1. Plans. Sec. 19.3-24. Applicability. Each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article prior to commencing any land development, or allowing any land development to occur, on his property, for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional use. and at all times thereafter. Sec. 19.3-25. Designation of water resources areas. In order to better effectuate the purposes of this article, all of the land within the county is hereby designated as being within one or more of the following water resources areas: a. Development areas: Development areas are those areas of land within the county designated as development areas in the land use element of the comprehensive plan, and as shown on the official map of the land use element. b. Areas ofinfill and redevelopment: Areas of infill and redevelopment are those areas of land within the county that are: (i) within a development area: and (ii) designated as areas of infill and redevelopment for purposes of this article by the board of supervisors, and as shown on the official map adopted showing such areas. The board of supervisors shall designate such areas based on a finding that existing development has altered severely the natural condition of the area. including the presence of vegetation, and that infill and redevelopment activities would serve other community and corn prehensive plan goals. 25 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 c. Water supply protection areas: Water supply protection areas are those areas of land within the county that are within the watershed of a public water supply reservoir, and such areas shall consist of all land within the county that drains naturally to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir. Totier Creek Reservoir, Sugar Hollow Reservoir, P, agged Mountain Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake, and to any impoundment designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water supply reservoir. d. Other rural land: Other rural land consists of those areas of land that are not within a development area. an area of infill and redevelopment, or a water supply protection area. Sec. 19.3-26. Overlapping water resources areas. If a land development is or will be on land within both a water supply protection area and another type of water resources area, the requirements of the water supply protection area shall apply. Sec. 19.3-27. Stormwater management/BMP plan; requirements. Each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a stormwater managemenfJBMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit an application on an application form provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-34, a stormwater management/BMP plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections lb) and lc), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The stormwater management/BMP plan shall include specifications for stormwater management and best management practices in order to satisfy the requirements of division 2 of this article. The program authority may require the owner to submit maps, calculations, detail drawings, reports, a listing of all major permit decisions and any other information as may be necessary for a complete review of the plan. c. For purposes of this section, major permit decisions include, but are not limited to, decisions pertaining to zoning map amendments, special use permits, site plans, plats, grading permits, building permits, erosion and sediment control plans and any permit related to the land development required under state or federal law. 26 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-28. Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan. Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided heroin: a. Within ten (10) days from the receipt of an application, the program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the application for roview, which will begin the forty-five (45) day roview period set forth in subsection (d), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the information necessary to complete the application. If the program authority accepts the application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the application to the owner. b. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 19.3-27 and all other requirements of this article. c. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to roview and discuss the plan with the owner, and to roq uest any additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan. d. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the application was accepted for review. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with this article, The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date thatit is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner, If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. e. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority shall be subject to the following: 1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan, th is article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act ICode of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.2 et sESE~'!'.' and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 et 2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing construction land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan; 27 DRAFT: Februa~ 3,1998 3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved plan; 4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred, assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the program authority and the recipient of such rights provides the certification required by subsection (e)(2); 5. The program authority may require, in conjunction with its approval of a plan, that the owner first enter into a stormwater managementJBMP facilities maintenance agreement as provided in section 19.3-47; 6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as provided in section 19.3-48; and 7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program authority shall not be required to § ~ve notice prior to conducting an inspection. f. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is determined by the program authority to posea danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare or to deviate from sound engineenng practices. Sec. 19.3-29. Monitoring and reporting. As a condition of approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan, the program authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as provided herein: a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the stormwater managementJBMP plan and to determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater management. b. The condition requinng monitoring and reporting shall state the method and frequency of such monitoring. c. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports. 28 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-30. Issuance of permit; surety. A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved stormwater management/BMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until such approved plan and certification are submitted. b. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-49, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice. The performance bond or other surety shall be provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit by the permit issuing department until sixty (60) (]ays after the requirements of the approved stormwater management/BMP plan have been completed, as determined by the program authority. If approved by the program authority and the county attorney, the owner may submit the performance bond or other surety as part of, or included in, any performance bond or surety required in conjunction with a site plan, plat, or the performance bond or surety required by section 19.3-15. c. A performance pond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to subsection (bi shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan as a result of the land development. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and rapatr all stormwater management facilities. practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater management/BMP plan. d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 19.3-49 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety. 29 DRAFT: February 3, '1998 e. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved stormwater management/BMP plan, as determined by the program authority, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter, compliance with the requirements of this article shall be assured by a maintenance agreement entered into by and between the owner and the program authority, which agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney. Sec. 19.3-31. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan. The program authority may change an approved stormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit additional data identified in section 19.3-27(b) in order to allow the program authority to determine whether any such change to the plan will comply with the requirements of this article. b. The program authority shall conduct its review of the proposed change to the plan as provided in section 19.3-28. c. If the proposed change to the approved plan complies with the requirements of this article, the program authority shall approve such proposed change in writing. d. An owner shall make no changes to an approved plan without first complying with this section. Sec. 19.3~2. Exceptions. Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 19.3-45, a request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted as provided herein: a. A written request for an exception shall be submitted to the program authority, which shall immediately forward a copy of the request to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The request shall address the factors listed in subsection (c). b. After receiving and considering a recommendation from the program authority, the board of supervisors shall grant or deny a request for an exception within sixty (60) days of the date of the receipt of the request. c. A request for exception may be granted provided that: 30 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority for review in accordance with this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the use of non- structural measures as provided in section 19.3-37, the use of a mitigation plan as provided in section 19.3-46, or by other means; 2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the purposes of this article are satisfied; and 4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an insufficient reason to grant an exception. Sec. 19.3-33. Dedication of stormwater management facilities. The owner of a stormwater management facility required by this article may offer for dedication any such stormwater management facility, together with such easements and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary, as provided herein: a. U po~ receipt of such offer of dedication by the county, the program authority shall make a preliminary determination that the dedication of such facilities is appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall forward its determination to the board of supervisors. Prior to making its determination, the program authority shall inspect the facility to determine whether it has 0een properly maintained and is in good repair. b. The board of supervisors may accept the offer of dedication by adoption of a resolution. c. The document dedicating the stormwater management facility shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county. d. If the dedication of a stormwater management facility is required as a condition of approval of a plat, then the prowsions of sections 18.1-59, 18.1-61 and 18.1-66 of the subdivision ordinance shall apply in lieu of this section. e. The owner, at his sole expense, shall provide any document or information requested by the program authority or the board of supervisors. 31 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-34. Fees. Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater managemenfJBMP plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." a. Plan: $100. b. Major amendment of plan: $ 75. c. Request for exception (section 19.3-32): $190. d. Request for development in a stream buffer or for reduction or modification of stream buffer (section 19.3-45) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document) (section 19.3-46): $ 50. e. Each inspection: $ 45. Sec. 19.3-35. Review of certain program authority actions. Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein: a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority or, if an exception to the requirements of this article as provided in section 19.3-32 is requested and denied, within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the denial of such exception ~s given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered. b. When reviewing the program authority's action the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court as provided in section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia. c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to the owner, owners of adjacent or downstream property, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. 32 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection Sec. 19.3-36. Stormwater management facilities and channels. Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as provided herein: a. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, and the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act. b. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. c. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runoff from the entire land development project area. d. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land development project area and shall be used in all engineering calculations. e. The number, type, and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be designed so as to preserve natural channel characteristics and natural groundwater recharge on a site to the extent practical Section 19.3-37. Non-structural measures. Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural measures ~n order to satisfy the requirements of this article as provided herein: a. The program authority may allow non-structural measures to satisfy, partially or in whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted technical literature, are acceptable to the program authority based on its exercise of sound professional judgment, and the program authority finds that the measures achieve equivalent benefit for water quantity and/or quality protection as would otherwise be provided by structural measures. b. Non-structural measures include, but are not limited to, m'nimization of impervious surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer areas, wetland restoration, waste reuse and recycling, and development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff. 33 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. '19.3-38. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff. Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that land and receiving waterways which are downstream from the land development be protected from stormwater runoff damage, as provided herein: a. To protect downstream properties and rece~wng waterways from flooding, the ten (10) year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the ten (10) year pre-development peak rate of runoff. b. To protect downstream properties and rece~wng waterways from channel erosion, the two (2) year post-development peak rate and velocity of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the two (2) year pre-development peak rate and velocity of runoff. c. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or hydraulic study has been conducted or a stormwater model developed, the program authority may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) so that runoff from the land development is controlled in accordance with the findings in the study or model, or to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation, and/or localized flooding problems. d. In addition to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the program authority may require that the plan include additional measures to address damaging conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways caused by the land development. e. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes of subsections (a) or (b) shall be vedfied by calculations that are consistent with accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority. f. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops. 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land. including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. 34 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 4. Land development that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land area, not including cases where land development is to be done in phases and the total land disturbance for all phases is greater than one (1) acre. 5. Land development or a portion of a land development on land which is designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been modified by permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance. 6. Land development or a portion of a land development where the land is actjacent to a flood plain, and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the program authority that off-site improvements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better serve the public interest and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties or stream channels. 7. Any land development related to a final site plan or plat approved by the appropriate governing authority prior to the effective date of this chapter, g. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from some or all of the requirements of this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The land development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection area or other rural land; 2. The program authority determines that the application of the requirements of this article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the benefits of the strict application of all of the requirements of this article; 3. All requirements which are determined by the program authority to not apply to the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater management/BMP plan; and 4. The granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment. Sec. 19.3-39. Best management practices. Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best management practices be provided in conjunction with or in addition to stormwater management facilities designed for water quantity treatment, as provided herein: 35 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 a. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff from the entire land development project area and, in particular, areas of impervious cover within the land development, to the maximum extent practicable. b. Best management practices shall be designed to remove the difference between post-development and pre-development total phosphorus loads in cases where post-development loads exceed pre-development loads. c. Calculation methods and expected removal ranges for various best management practices shall be included in the design manual maintained by the program authority. d. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia; 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops; and 3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land, including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units. Sec. 19.3-40. Contribution to regional stormwater management program; Each stormwater managementJBMP plan shall require that the owner contribute to a regional stormwater management program, as provided herein: a. If the land development is located within the watershed of a regional stormwater management program established by the county which requires pro rata share contributions, the owner shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in accordance with any ordinance of the county establishing the program b. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall relieve the owner of the requirements of section 19.3-38. if the regional program is designed to control the peak rate and velocity of runoff, and/or the requirements of section 19.3-39, if the regional program is designed to provide best management practices. An owner's payment pursuant to subsection (a) shall not relieve an owner of his responsibility to comply with any other requirement of this chapter, except as provided in this section. 36 DRAFT: February 3, '!998 Sec. 19.3-4'1. Duty to retain or establish stream buffer. Except as provided in section 19.3-43. any land subject to this article and each stormwater management/BMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing eres~on, filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderating stream temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks, as provided herein: a. If the development is located within a development area or an area of inflll and redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist. b. If the development is located within a water supply protection area, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist: or Iii) the limits of the flooct plain The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred I200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment. c. If the development is located within other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains associated with these streams. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the eage of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. d. On agricultural lands used for crop land. whether located in a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural land, the stream buffer shall include all perennial streams, non-tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams, and a twenty-five (25) foot buffer, measured horizontally from the edge of contiguous non-tidal wetlands, or the top of the stream ban ~ if no wetlands exist, On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of 37 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof, which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop land. e. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land development to the fullest extent possible. f, Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-42, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-44, and the additional types of development which may be allowed in a stream buffer identified in sectio~ 19.3-45, no indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the area affected. Sec. 19.3.42. Management of stream buffer. Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section 19.3-41 shall be managed as provided herein: a. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control, stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the stream buffer shall be an indigenous riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall be allowed only as provided in subsections (b) and (c). b. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land classified as nontidal wetland: 1. Indigenous r~parian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by natural succession where it does not exist. 2. Dead diseased, and dying trees may be removed. 3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined root systems in imminent danger of falling, may be removed where stream bank erosion is a current or potential problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees may have on the stream ecosystem. 4. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species is allowed, provided that such removal or prumng is done in a manner that prevents erosion. 38 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; stormwater channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion, c. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream bank and outside of nontidal wetlands: 1. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed. 2. Silvicultural thinning may be conducted based upon the best available technical advice of a professional forester. 3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and vistas, provided that if trees are removed they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff. 4. Trees of six (6) inches diameter or greater at breast height shall be preserved. 5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species shall be allowed, provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion. 6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control erosion. Sec. 19.3-43. Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer. The following types of development shall not be required to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: a. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and [elephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished ~n compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. b. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer lines, including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies, provided that: 39 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be outside of all stream buffer areas; 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and maintain the water or sewer lines; and 3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer lines shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality. c. Silvicultural activities, provided that such activities are conducted in compliance with the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations." Sec. 19.3-44. Types of development authorized in stream buffer. If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the following types of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: a. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter may continue at such location. However, nothing in this section authorizes the continuance repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of such building or structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance. b. On-site or regional stormwater management facilities and temporary erosion and sediment control measures, provided that: 1. To the extent practica, as determined by the program authority, the location of such facilities shall be outside of the stream buffer: 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for construction and maintenance of the facility, as determined by the program authority; 3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality; and 4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the county and are designed and Iocated= to the extent practical, to maintain their water quantity and/or water quality control value, according the standards of this article, during flood conditions. 40 DRAFT:February3,1998 c. Water-dependent facilities; water wells; pass~ve recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation; archaeological activities; provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained. Sec. 19.3-45. Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to. and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 19.3-46. a. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter and which is not within a water supply protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream). b. On a lot which is located within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward. c. On a lot which: (i) is located within a water supply protection area; or (ii) was of record on or after the date of adoption of this chapter and is located within other rural land: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development is determined by the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this subsection (3), the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer. d. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project. e. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot. f. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system must comply with all applicable state laws. 41 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 g. On a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district. Sec. 19.3-46. Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section 19.3-45 shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein: a. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable requirements of this section, the fee required by section 19.3-34, and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. b. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within thirty (30) days that a complete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. c. Each mitigation plan shall: 1. Identify the impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands within the stream buffer: 2. Ensure that, where development does take place within a stream buffer, it be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; 3. Demonstrate and assure that development will be conducted using best management practices; 4. Specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts; 5. Contain all other information requested by the program authority. d. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria: 1. Whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have been explored and exhausted; 42 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 2. Whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer: and 3. Whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions. Division 3. Corn pliance and enforcement. Sec. 19.3-47, Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement. Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater managementJBMP plan. each owner shall: a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan. b. Maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management measures required by the plan, as provided herein: 1. The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner, unless such responsibility is transferred to the county or to another governmental entity as provided in section 19.3-33. 2. If an approved stormwater management/BMP plan requires structural or non- structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any plan of development or other development for which a permit is required. The agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county and shall run with the land. If an owner cannot exemise a purchase agreement until a plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided that the agreement is signed and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the development project. 3. The stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney and shall, at a minimum: (i) designate for the land development the owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity which shall be permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural or non- structural measures required by the plan; (ii) pass the responsibility for such maintenance to successors in title; and (iii) ensure the continued perl:ormance of the maintenance obligations required by the plan and this article. 43 DRAFT: February 3, 1998 Sec. 19.3-48. Inspections. The program authority shall inspect any land subject to an approved stormwater management/BMP plan as provided herein: a. During the installation of stormwater managementJBMP measures or the conversion of erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater managemenfJBMF measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in the approved plan. b. Upon completion ofthe installation of stormwater managementJBMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being maintained as provided in the approved plan, or to investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. The inspections shall be conducted at least annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation of the stormwater management/BMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be complete. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise therefrom. c. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by this section. The notice may be either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be required if the program authority and the owner have entered intoa right of entry agreement or if the owner has granted to the program authority an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance, as provided in section 19.3-28(e)(7). Sec. 19.3-49. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure. Upon a determinatio~ by the program authority that the owner has failed to comply with the approved stormwater managemenfJBMP plan, the following procedures shall apply: a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures 44 DRAFT:February3,1998 required to comply with the plan; and (iii) specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department. b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may revoke any grading, building or other permit for activities involving the land development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. c. If the program authority determines, upon completion of a maintenance inspection provided in section 19.3-48, that maintenance or repair of the measures is neglected, or that any stormwater management facility is a danger to public health or safety, it may perform the work necessary to assure that such measures or facilities are not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such work from the owner. Sec, 19.3-50. Penalties and remedies, This article may be enforced as follows: a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or up to thirty (30) days imprisonment for each violation, or both. b. The county may apply to the cimuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land lies to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of the provisions of this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. c. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section. the county may bring a civil action against any person for violation of any provision of this article or any term or condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek the imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2000.00) against the person for each violation. d. W~th the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any provision of this article, the program authority may provide, in an order issued by the program authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (c) Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). i:\DEPT~TTORNEY~GK~ORDINANC\WATER\WATER8.ORD 45 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION County of ~lbemarle Department of Engineering November 19, 1997 COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES ORDINANCE Supplemental DoCumentation November 19, 1997 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance: History & Timeline ..................................... 1 Comparison of Current County, City, & University Practices To Proposed Ordinance (Matrix) ............................................................................... 3 Comments on Various Drafts from the Public. County Departments, and State Agencies & En~neering Department Res_oonses ................................................ 9 Comments & Responses on the April 10, 1996 Draft John Mlinarcik. Department of Conservation & Recreation ....................................... 9 Joseph Battiata. Depat trident of Conservation & Recreation ....................................... 11 Michael Matthews. Brinkman MDC .................................................................. 14 Jacquelyn Huckle, Planning Commission ........................................................... 16 Other Comments From The Focus Group ............................................................ 22 Comments & Responses on the October 21, 1996 Draft Larry Davis & Greg Kampmer, County Attorney's Office ....................................... 24 Robert Shaw. Erosion Control Officer .............................................................. 31 Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council.., .............................................. 34 John Mlinarcik, Department of Conservation & Recreation ...................................... 36 Run Keeler, Department of Planning & Community Development ............................ 37 Edward Scharer, Albemarle County Farm Bureau ...................................... ............ 44 Comments & Responses on the Febr~. 25, 1997 Draft Don Franco. The Kessler Group ...................................................................... 45 Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering ............................................................ 48 Tom Gale, Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc ......................................................... 48 John Mlinarcik, Department of Conservation & Recreation ...................................... 49 Planning Commission Work Session Minutes ............................................................. 50 April 29. 1997 Work Session ......................................................................... 50 October 7, 1997 Work Session ....................................................................... 52 Other Documents & Correspondence Members of Ordinance Focus Group ................................................................ 59 Focus Group Priority Matrix for Water Resources Areas ........................................ 60 USGS Policy on Reclassifying Streams (Perermial or Intermittent) ............................. 61 1/16/97 Letter from Engineering to Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Dept .................. 62 2/11/97 Letter from Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Dept. to Engineering ................. 65 2/26/97 Letter from Engineering to Developers, Consultants & Interested Parties ........... 67 2/28/97 Letter from Engineering to City Engineering & Planning Departraents Conveying City-Specific Draft of Ordinance .............................................. {58 3/3/97 Letter from Engineering to Rivarma Water & Sewer Authority Explaining Proposed Changes For Reservoir Watershed ................................. 70 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance HISTORY & TIMELINE COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES ORDINANCE: History_ & Timeline 1989 Update of Comprehensive Plan: Water Chapter lists as Strategy: Review Soil Erosion Ordinance, Runoff Control Ordinance, and Stormwater Detention Ordinance for consistency. [Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance not yet adopted]. January-Sentember, 1994: Dewberry & Davis submits critique of current County ordinances, state programs, and programs in other localities, as well as consolidated ordinance recommendations as component of Moores Creek/Meadow Creek Study. December 16. 1994: Water Resources Committee discusses ordinance consolidation. Decides to use Committee as core for "Focus Group," with additional members coming from other agencies and organizations. · March 8. 1995: FoCUs Group has first meeting and plans strategy. Mar. ch-May. 1995: Focus Group meets four more tunes to work on objectives. priorities, and outlines of ordinance. May 24, 1995: Engineering Staff presents ordinance update to PACC-Tech. City and University representatives urge that effort be expanded so that ordinance would apply to County, City, and University instead of just the County. · September-December. 1995: Staff works on prelim'mary draft of ordinance. February_ 13. 1996: County, City, and University engineering staffs meet to review preliminary draft. · March 18. 1996: Second draft circulated to City and University for review. · April 10. 1996: Third draft completed and sent to Focus Group for review. May 10. 1996: Focus Group meets to give comments on draft. Staff presents how proposed ordinance would change from current practices on "sample plans." Additional written comments requested from Focus Group. September 25. 1996: Proposed changes to agricultural buffers reviewed by Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District Board. Board expresses general support for changes. October 21. 1996: Fourth draft completed using Focus Group comments and circulated back to Focus Group, County Attorney's Office. and other internal reviewers. Page 1 N~ Engineering staff presents ordinance overview at Red X Meeting (Developmem Departmems~. Red X recommends presentation at City/County Joint Planning Commission meeting and Development Roundtable. N~12~111l~5~!~ Focus Group meets m give comments on latest draft and provide guidance on several Design Manual and implementation issues. ~ Engineering staff gives presentation on ordinance to joint City/County Planning Commission meeting. ~llllglll2~.~a~ Engineering staff gives presentation on ordinance to Development Roundtable. F~fllffi3L~ Fifth draft completed. Circulated to Focus Group, County Attorney's Office. other internal parties, and anyone who requested to review the ordinance at previous meetings. Letter circulated to local developers, consultants, and other interested parties armouncmg that draft is available for review. · April 7. 1997: Sixth draft completed using latest round of comments. · April 29. 1997: Planning Commission work session (#1). May 12, 1997: Seventh draft, with Planning Commission comments addressed. completed and forwarded to County Attorney's Office. July - September, 1997: Engineering Department and County Attorney's Office work on several more drafts to address technical, legal, and administrative details and ordinance organization and formatting (draft dates: July 11, September 12. September 29). · October 7. 1997: Planning Commission work session Iff2). October - November. 1997: Engineering Department and County Attorney's Office produce subsequent drafts m address Planning Commission comments and final details (draft dates: November 3. November 13, November 19). Ordinance is scheduled for Board of Supervisors review at December 3, 1997 meeting. Page 2 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CURRENT PRACTICES (County, City, University) Comp ehenstve Water Resources Ordinance COMMENTS RECEIVED & RESPONSES TO VARIOUS DRAFTS COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES ORDINANCE Comments Received & Responses Albemarle County Department of Engineering, Water Resources Manager April 2, 1997 -- Updated November 19. 1997 Responses to Conunents Received on the April 10, 1996 Preliminary Draft Comments in normal face, Responses in italics NOTE: Page references are to April 10. 1996 Preliminary Draft, unless otherwise noted. Changes made m the ordinance based on this round of comments may have been modified due to subsequem revismns. [Reference to the f'mal draft (November 19. 1997) in brackets following the FD notation]. John Mllnarcik. Department of Conservation & Recreation, Letter dated 4/25/96 JMI: Pa~,e 3, (Development) - It would be beneficial to add the following phrase after the words - of the physical character (and/or runoff rates). Language added IFD: pg. 6]. JM2: Page 4, (Handbook) -- The state SWM Handbook is to be published early this summer. Due to the enhanced technical nature of the publication, it would be advantageous to note this manual. In the context of this ordinance, the Handbook is the State E&S handbook, which I don't want to be confused with the BMP Design Manual. which will likely contatn major components from the upcoming SWM Handbook. JM3: Page 13, (Section 3-B) -- It would be beneficial to note the minimum area of land developmem and/or the conditions where stormwater management is required. These types of criteria are listed separately for E&S, Water Quantity, and Water Quality (Sections 4,5, and 6), since the criteria differ for each of them. E&S exemptions are based On the state program. Water quantity exemptions are based on detention considerations and a size development below which increases in peak discharge are negligible. Water quality exemptions are based primarily on Stream Buffer considerations [2aD: Sections 19.3-8, 19.3-38, 19,3-39]. JM4: Page 14, (4) -- You may want to list the forthcom'mg Virginia S.M. manual See response to JM2 above. JMS: Page 16. (A-3 &4] -- In order to agree with the forthcoming S.M. Regulations, it is recommended that the (10) year storm be added. Otherwise. you could add verbiage that the (2) year storm is imended to conform with the stream channel erosion component of the forthcoming revised state regulations, while the (10) year control is intended for flood control. Language added to these sections. 17*D: Section 19.3-38]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 9 JM6: Page 16. (B) -- After the phrase - in the study or model. - or to prevent...: it would be beneficial to add the word (adverse). Language added. JMT: Page 16, (C-l) -- After the phrase - watershed less than 20 acres.. : it ts recommended that the language/again SCS Methodology may be used or . . . ). Language added. [FD: Section 19.3-38(c)]. JM8: Page .17, (D2~ -- This item does not appear to be consistent with MS-19 of the state E&S Regulations. This refers to an exemption for a specific detention requirernent, but MS-19 would still apply. Please refer the discussion under comrnent JB6 below. The 20,000 sf exernption has been removed. [FD: Section 19.3- 3809]. JMg: Page 17. (D3) -- It is recommended that the following phrase be added to the end of the sentence (unless phasing subsequently occurs). l'rn not sure I understand the intent of the comment. This cut-off is porn the City's ordinance. However, the City doesn't have the County's cut-off outlined in D2. Perhaps the City version of the ordinance couM list D3 and County's couM list D2. [FD: Section 19.3-3809(4)]. JMIO: Pa~e24 (5) -- It would be useful to add verbiage relative to SWM impact to the flood elevations. the integrity and functional cousiderations of facilities within the buffer area and within the floodplain during flood conditions. Added item (d) to address this.[FD: Section 19.3-44(a)~4)]. JMll: Page 26 (3) -- It may be useful to list the maximum allowable SWM and E&S fees. This seems like a good idea. Are there suggestions based on what is done in other localities ? Note: Language subsequently added based on enabling codes. JM12: Page 27, (B-2'} -- You may also wish to refer to the forthcoming state SWM manual. The BMP Design Manual will likely contain rnany components of the 3WM Handbook, but will also cotnain additional material specific to this ordinance. JM13: Page 35, (C) -- It is recommended that language be modified to state that SWM/BMP pracuces must also be (stabilized)to grant refund of the bond. etc. Language added. [FD: Section 19.3-30(e)]. JM14: Other -- For performance based water quality criteria, you should (define) establish a default impervious cover (i.e.. 16%) as listed in the proposed state regulations. It is suggested that technology Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 10 based criteria also be included. Please see Pages 10 through 13 within the attached state ~propose~) SWM Regulations. "Default" impervious covers vary depending on the Water Resources Area (development area, water supply area. etc.,. All of this is built into the Modified Simple Method. This was done to try to make this ordinance consistent with the County and City Land Use Plans. The issue of technology-based criteria, as outlined in the proposed SWM Act. has been discussed by our department. We felt that sacking with performance criteria would provide more consistency between projects and wouM. in a rudimentary sense, help us to quantify pollutant loads based on our Modified Simple Method. This issue could be revisited if the state feels strongly about adding technology criteria to the ordinance. I do feel that the process that we have outlined in the current proposed ordinance will be very simple and straighO~orward for the developers and design consultants to use. Joseph Battiata. Deoartment of Conservation & Recreation. Letter dated 5/10/~6 JBI: Article I, §2 should reference the stamto .ry authority under which the regulations are being adopted. Obviously the CBPA plays a role as does the SWM Act. Language added, fiD: Section 19.3-2]. JB2: Article I. §7. The definitions for "certified inspector, plan reviewer, and program administrator" should be qualified as for an er0sion and sediment control since the Soil and Water Conservation Board has more than One program and. at this time. the certification does 'not include SWM other than the provisions within the E&S regulations. The certification program may at some fume in the future be expanded to include SWM. Language added to definitions. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. JB3: Article II. §3.C. Should this reference the SWM Act as well? I'm not sure, since this ordinance is our local version of the state SWM Aet. If we said that a general condition was to comply with the state SWM Act, how wouM be handle cases where the local program deviates from the provisions of the Act ? JB4: Article II, §3.E. If the performance-based criteria (the simple method) is m be used. then the amount of the site to be controlled by a water quality BMP is based on the removal efficiency of the BMP and the percentage of the site being treated. The entire site can be treated with a less efficient BMP or a small portion of the site can be treated by a high efficiency BMP m satisfy the removal requirement. If. to the maximum extent practicable, the entire site is required for water quality treatment then the technology- based criteria should be employed. (The proposed state SWM regulations provide the option of using the performance - or technology-based criteria.) Section 3(E) states a general philosophy about treating as much ora site as possible with some type of runoff treatment, and provides guidance to designers when selecting BMP options. However. it seems that Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10. 1996 Draft Page 11 the Modified Simple Method can still provide a standardized way to calculate removal requirements. See the response to item JMJ4 above. If there is truly a conflict here, we can either delete subsection (EJ. or add the technology-based criteria. JBS: Article II. §4.B. Are these exemptions consistent with the statutory authority (CBPA, SWM Act. NPDES)? These exemptions apply only to the E&S provtsions of the ordinance, and are consistent with the State E&S Code. They do not apply to water quantity, water quality, or Stream Buffers, as each of&ese sections has its own exemptions section. IFD: Section 19.3-8]. JB6: Article II, §5.D.2 Exemptions should be based on total disturbed area or a measured threshold of acceptable impact such as a pement increase in peak flow based on sound hydrologic methods. After discussing this issue within the Engineering Department, I changed the exemption section by deleting reference to 20,000 sf. I added an exemption for a single-family residence. There remains, however, an issue of an appropriate cut-off (e.g., below a certain increase in cfs from pre-development conditions) where detention would not be warranted. In the past, a figure of lcfs of increase in peak discharge has been used. We decided that we will develop a methodology based on hydrologic methods to determine this, and that it wilt be a component of the Design Manual. [FD: Section 19.3-38]. JB7: Article II; §5.D.4. If there is a limit to the time a site plan approval is valid, then there is a distinct difference between an approved site plan and a recorded subdivision plat. In our local site review, a final subdivision 'plat' is essentially a final plan. A final site plan is equivalent to a final subdivision plat in terms of timing, and it is not essential that either have plats that are recorded at this stage. JB8: Article II, §6.A. Must BMPs treat the entire site regardless of the efficiency and removal requirement? We are stating a preference that we wouM like all site runoff to be treated in some fashion, whether in a particular facility, through the expansion of Stream Buffer, or through some other non-structural method. However, if the Modified Simple Method comes up with no water quality requirement, then no facilities wouM be required. This is because, by the Calculation. there would be no difference in pre and post development phasphoru~ loading. The Stream Buffer ;~rovisions would still apply. [FD: Section 19.3-39]. JB9: Modified Simple Method Calculation Procedure. The assumed existing impervious cover for the different areas: growth, infill and redevelopment, and drinking water, should be determined according to methods in the CBLAD Manual. Those same methods are being adopted into the DCR regulations as part of the water quality performance-criteria. Also, the derivation or justification for the total phosphorus mean concentration values for the various land areas should be documented~ - Assumed existing impervious cover -- The derivation of these values :- 20% for development areas, 50% for infill & redevelopment, 0% for drinking water watersheds, and 1% for other rural land-- came about through input from the focus group. There has'been a lot of discussion in this community lately about Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April i0, 1996 Draft Page 12 trying to focus development in the designated Development Areas and using land in these areas more efficiently. We are trying to develop a stormwater program that will complement this land use philosophy by: (a) not penalizing development in the Development Areas vis-a-vis rural areas because the development ends up being more intensive, and (b) not making stormwater requirements in the rural areas easier than in Development Areas. In a sense, our existing programs do not accomplish either of the above, and the new program, I think, would be unique in doing these things. In order to accomplish these things, it was necessary to modify the Simple Method by tailoring it to each Water Resources Area. I came up with the numbers through an iterative process of pulling oM site plans out of files, calculating their impervious coverage, and calculating pollutant removal requtrements under various scenarios. The assumed impervious coverages I came up with reflect the tmperviousness, on average, of the, "sample' site plans that I used, as well as any information I have on watershed imperviousness in the different Water Resources Areas. Unfortunately, we do not have a GIS up and running at this point that would allow us to easily calculate these values .for various watersheds. If this method and process, us well as its philosophical underpinning, cannot meet the language in the proposed state regulations ~§3.2 -- Technical criteria for local programsj, then we need to have more discussion. Total phosphorus mean concentrations: These values did come from stream monitoring data, as documented below: Develot~ment Areas & Areas of Inffll & Redevelopment: For these areas, I used data from the current Moores Creek/Meadow Creek study, Mean total phosphorus for storm events at two stations on Moores Creeks was O. 704 mg/L at MOC1 rMonticello Ave., and O. 731 mg/L at MOC2 (USGS partial gage location off of Route 29 S). For Meadow Creek, the levels were 0.744 at MEC1 ff-Iolmes Ave.) and 0,605 mg/L at MEC2 (Brandywine Drivel. The average of all these values is 0.696, rounded to O. 70 as it appears in the Modified Simple Method. These data come from the Moores Creek Watershed Study and South Fork Watershed Study, both reports prepared by Dewberry & Davis and dated April, 1996. Drinking Water Watersheds: For these areas, I used data from the 208 Watershed Management Study_ of the South Rivanna Reservoir, prepared by F.X Browne Associates, Inc., May 1982. Table 15 (page 44) represents "Total Phosphorus and Soluble Orthophosphate in Streams." The values in mg/L for average total phosphorus for storm flow conditions are us follows: Mechums River = 0.52; Moormans River = 0.35; Buck Mountain Creek = 0.36; and Ivy Creek = 0.35. Of these values, I discarded the Mechums River value since, at the time of the 208 study, this stream was receivtng substantial point source discharges from Crozet (most notably_from what was then Del Monte Frozen Foods), and these point sources have now been removed from the watershed. The average of the other three values is 0.35, which is the "C" value I assigned to drinking water watersheds in the Modified Simple Method Other Rural Land: We do not have any historical stortn flow data from streams in this area. 1 made the assumption that average phosphorus values would be very similar to those for the drinking water watershed streams, but slightly higher since these areas have not been subject to Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 13 the same watershed management controls as the drinking water watershed (since the late 1970'sJ. I assigned a "C' value of 0.40, which can be modified based on any future studies, 1YIichaeI Matthews. N.T. Brinkman. Inc.. Letter dated 5/17/96 MMI: Locally hnportant Streams: The idea of designating locally important streams is a great one, but I might suggest a change in terminology. I am sure everyone would think all streams are important, such that you might want to rename it as "Special Stream District." or similar nomenclature that does not suggest the unimportance of streams not so designated. It will obviously be critically important to define the criteria on which streams will be judged, and on whose authority they will be sodesignated. This is a good point, and one that came up more than once in the comments. I already changed this designation once from "locally-significant" to "lacal~(v-important" in response ro a previous comment that the terminology should be consistent with the Open Space Plan ~which has a category of "locally-important streams"). If consistency with tt~e Open Space Plan is not as irr~ortant as the perception that some streams are unimportant, I will be happy to change the terminology. This wouM be a good topic for the focus group. With regard to criteria and authority, I tried to clarify both of these by adding language w Article II, Section 2 (Water Resources Areas. see page 11 of the October 21 draft). As now proposed, destgnation will be by the Planning Commission, and criteria are listed in subsection ~B) of that section. [Note: Locally-Important Stream concept later dropped from the ordinance based on subsequent discussions. See comments and responses to the October 21. 1996 draft.] MM2: Section 4.A (2): Who will define "reasonable avoidable damage or harm," and is there an appeal process or other means to eliminate hostile neighbor problems or other nuisance type complaints? This section is taken from the existing E&S code. The "program authority" would make the "reasonably avoidable" determination based on a site visit. Practically speaking, this is the Erosion Control Officer ar the County and the Zoning Administrator at the City. Any time we receive a complaint, we must determine its validity, and this would also aPply to the new program. In terms of formal appeals, this is provided in Arffcle I~, Section 2(D) [page 33 in the 10/21/96 draflJ. Our day-to-day experience with complaints is that this is not used very often. If the complaint is valid, we give the responsible party a reasonable chance to fix the problem. If they fail to do so, they are "willfully ' allowing erosion to continue, and are cited for a violation.. If the complaint is not valid, we explain why to the person filing the complaint. [FD: Section 19.3-10(c)]. MM3: Section 4.B 0): Does Chapter 11 of the Virginia Code regarding harvesting of forest crops specify a tune lmut within which the area must be reforested such that areas are not denuded and left to erode for long periods of time? The intent of the reference to Chapter 11 is to not have land cleared for development under the silvicultural exemption. This is new language that came from the State in order to addres~ this issue~. 1 am assuming that the State confirmed that the provisions o~ Chapter Il wouM indeed support the Iocal programs legal~. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page i4 I looked through Chapter 11 myself, but couldn't decipher exactly where the connection is. We will consult with the County Attorney on this. [FD: Section 19.3-8(a)(7)]. MM4: Section 6.D: As I read the regulations, the existing 100 foot setback is no longer subject m a reduction of 50 feel with the employment of BMP's. This I expect will have significant consequences on many projects. Is it intended that the buffer reduction be eliminated? This is a very important question since it changes current policy in a more restrictive fashion. I have rewritten Section 6(F) concerning Mitigation Plans [page 21 of the 10/21/96 draft]. 1 think the new language is much more clear wtth regard ro encroachments. Buffer reductions are allowed with various conditions based on which water resources area the project is in (e.g., Development Area, Water Supply Protection Area, erc.i. [ID: Sections 19.3-45 & 19.3-46]. MMS: Section 6.E: I applauded the effort to allow constructive modification of the buffer areas for visual improvemem. We want to make sure, however, that removal or prumng of invasive shrub and vine species, if allowed, is done in such a manner that prese~es the integrity ef any slopes or other areas subject m erosion. As a ph'flosophicat approach to this section, we recognized that not all wetland areas are created equal and that well planned-and managed modifications can enhance an area above what is naturally occurring. We consider it important m mainta'm flexibility at the County level to allow creative designs that modify existing vegetation and watemourses in a way that fits the overall managemem goals of tl/e specific stream or wetland area I added some language to the sentences dealing with invasive species to say that pruning or removal must done in a manner that prevents erosion. This will give us a chance to rectify removal operations that are causing erosion while still being clear that removal of these species is allowed for buffer enhancement. [FD : Section 19.3-45(b) (4)]. With regard to allowing creative designs, there is certainly a complex of overlapping local, state, and _federal regulations concerning streams and wetlands. I think that the new ~ocal ordinance will allow for flexible design provided that Army Corps and DEQ requirements are met. You may want to refer to Section 6(H) (7) on the exemption for water-dependent facilities. "Ecological/wetland restoration projects ~ are specifically mentioned in this section. [FD: Section 19.3-45(b)(3)]. MM6: Section 6.F: I consider this an extremely important section and feel it is necessary that the review criteria and timing be clearly established. I would guess that most developers would submit a proposal to reduce the stream buffers or to allow encroachment into the stream buffers, which may create a blizzard of paperwork for the reviewing entity. Perhaps quantifying the process and timing will allow developers to make judgements based on the criteria and process. We again applaud the flexibility the County is displaying recoginzmg that some encroachments may be appropriate. Once again, please refer to this section as it is rewritten in the 10/21/96 draft. I added review criteria for mitigation plans and tried to clarify that mitigation shouM only be considered in cases where the need to encroach is compelling. Timing wouM be dependent on whether the mitigation plan is tied to an E&S plan or site plan. At present, we are attempting to coordinate all reviews that come out of the Engineering Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 15 Department (e.g., E&S, site plan. water quality impact dssessment, etc. i. The new ordinance wouM further encourage this coordination by making mitigation plans a Component of other required documents. [FD : Section 19.3-46]. MM7: Section 7: Non-structural measures are very unportant in maintaining flexibility and encouraging creativity among the design community, t will be interested to know again exactly what process must be followed and what timing can be expected for review of these measures. If the County would like to encourage such measures, which I feel is appropriate, you may consider having this not follow a wavier process, but instead allow "by right" examples of nonstructural measures, perhaps through your storm water manual or your BMP manual. Waiver processes are always uncertain and often a developer will choose the path of least resistance, which may not be in the best interest of the environment. I addedan additional criteria to evaluate nonstructural measures, and left the decision with the program authority. IFD: Section 19.3-37]. Jacquelvn Huclde, Plannine Commission. Written Comments hand delivered Jill: Locally irnportam streams, page 4. There are NO unimportant streams - all contribute to reduction of pollution by bio-remediation and by aeration especially if the stream has a rocky bottom which causes riffles in the water. Water mn-off which is put in a pipe does not get cleansed, it merely is transported in. its polluted state from one jurisdiction to another. Piped streams do not recharge the ground water of their location - water is merely hurried away to the ocean from where the locality hopes it will someday return as rain. Unless we are more protective of all local springs and streams, the amount of water in our rivers and reservoirs will be less than adequate for our growing needs. I am enclosing some comments on site planning for sustainability. This highlights the fact that the most challengtng aspect of the new program will be protecting streams in areas that have been or are getting developed, while allowing the Development Areas to handle the new development and infill. The proposed ordinance does add water quality, requirements in these areas, but not to the same extent as in drinking water watersheds or rural areas. The new ordinance also adds detention of the 2-year storm, specifically to control channel erosion. These provisions will help, but of course cannot solve all urban stream problems. The "locally-important stream' concept emerged in the focus group as a way to refine the application of Stream Buffers in Development Areas where they will do the most good or have the most benefit. The next step is to come to agreement on the criteria and authonfty to determine these streams. For this I refer you to new language added to Article II, Section 2(B) [page 11 of the 10/21/96 draft], where both authority and criteria are suggested. This will also be subject of a future focus group meeting and perhaps a fieM trip. ~ote: Locally-Important Stream concept later dropped from the ordinance based on subsequent discusstons. See comments and responses to the October 21. 1996 draft.] JI-I2: Perennial streams -We need a broader definition of these than the USGS solid blue line. Note reference on page 158 of WATERSHED PROTECTION TECHNIQUES - "blue lines are only first approximation for delineating streams as this scale does not always reveal all first order perennial streams." Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10. 1996 Draft Page 16 It is certainly true that USGS mapped designations are not 100% accurate. However. at this point, they do represent the best available designation of perennial and intermittent streams on a large scale based on extensive fleld work when the maps were produced. As you know. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program uses the USGS designation to determine RPA streams. For USGS, this means that a mapped representation has become the hinge for a regulatory program in numerous municipalities. As a result USGS has been flooded with requests to change mapped designations from intermittent to perennial and vice versa, sometimes for strictly,political reasons. I had a discussion with Keven Roth at USGS about the Albemarle situation because of various requests I have received. She sent me a policy that USGS developed in response to this issue (the polic) is attached). The policy outlines the procedure used to distinguish intermittent from perennial streams on the maps and the protocol for enacting changes to any particular stream. If we were to develop an alternative to the USGS map, it would have to be scientifically~sound and consistent, and would probably require field work to make the call for each stream segment that comes up. I wonder about the cost/benefit of this type of effort when USGS maps, it seems to me, provide a pretty good baseline based on hours and hours of field work by USGS staff. As one who administers the program. I wouM be inclined to stick with the USGS maps, with changes subject to the USGSpolicy developed in response to the whole Chesapeake Bay Program. [FD: Section 19.3-5, definition of perennial stream]. JH3: Page 5 - The Water Resources Manager should have the responsibility, in consultation with the Department of Engineering. Plan of Development must be approved prior to any grading, clearing of a site. Must be stiff penahies for breaching this provision of section 10.1-2109 of the code. Article IV, Section 3 deals with penalties. As you know, we get into tricky situations with the agricultural and silvicultural exemptions. The state has come up with new language to deal with these problems, and this has been added to the ordinance. [FD: Sections 19.3-8(b)(7) & 19.3-23]. JH4: GOALS - 1-New Construction: We need special emphasis on erosion control during road construction. There is a tradition among local developers of grad'rog for roads first and gett'mg permission later. With the new emphasis on denser development in the growth areas, it is hoped that urban stream buffers can be used creatively to defme neighborhoods, and improve aesthetics. I added language to the goals section for Development Areas: see page 8 of the 10/21/96 draft. [Note: the goals sections for each water resource area were removed in subsequent drafts, and all goals consolidated into Section 19.3-3]. JH5: 2-Water Su_trgly Protection Areas: In addition to providing a high level of water QUALITY protection we must protect the QUANTITY of water by lowering the siltation filling our reservoirs and not lowering the amount of water contributed by springs and streams making up the tributaries. All streams have "significant environmental features." I added language to the goals section for Water Supply Protection Areas: see page 9 of the 10/21/96 draft. [See note for Jtt4 above]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10. 1996 Draft Page 17 JH6: 3~Areas of Infill and Redevelopmem: Should be designated by the Planning Commission with advice from the Program Authority. Should not Chris Greene Lake be included in the list of present and future reservoirs since the county plans to use water from it [as it has been all along since the intake is below the confluence of Jacobs Run and the North Fork)? If it has not so designated as a drinking water source, this needs to be done at once before development occurs. With regard to designation of Areas of lnfill and Redevelopment, l added some new language to Article Il, Section 2(C) [page 11-12]. Designation is by the Planning Comnns' sion. and some criteria are listed. [FD: Section 19.3-25; designation of lnfill Areas by the Board of Supervisors]. Chris Greene Lake has been added to the list of impoundments. However, the final determination of this must be by the Board of Supervisors. A report on the Chris Greene Lake situation was submitted to the Board in March of this year. The report recommended that the Board make this decision in conjunction with ruling on the new water resources ordinance. Based on the Board's action at that time, Chris Greene Lake will be added or deleted from the water supply list in the ordinance (the March '96 report recommends adding it). [FD: Section 19.3-25(c)]. JH7: PAGE 13 - Stormwater Management Regulations: Designation of stream buffers in new and infill development - 100 feet on each side of importam streams and non-tidal wetlands, Engineering has said that structures should not be sited on the very edge of the above. Will this provision cover this. or must itbe addressed elsewhere also? Pg. 197 Ibis is covered under Section 6 regarding Stream Buffers. The buffers extend outward from nontidal wetlands, so the intent is to not buiM right on the edge of nontidal wetlands (for example, the Stream Buffer would be JO0 horizontul feet from the edge of the wetlands). IFD: Section 19.3-41(a)]. JH8: Exemptions for agriculture - What can be done, (require permit for any grading severe enough to employ a bull-dozer?) to prevent an owner to claim the road he is building is a btma-fide farm road and then it is discovered the "Farm Crop" is houses? (Page 15) Our department has been curious about how to prevent abuse of the agricultural exemption, and we have been to the County Attorney to explore this. In this ordinance, Iadded a defiuition for "agricultural road" [page 3], which, theoretically, puts,some constraints on how large these roads can be, and would reasonably be anyway for agricultural purposes. At this point, we don't know if this will survive further scrutiny by the State and the County Attorney, or if the definition will in fact alleviate theproblem. [FD: Section 19.3-5: definition of agricultural road]. JH9: PAGE 17 - Exem_mions: How do you justify #2 exempting impervious cover of less that 20.000 sf here while only exempting 10.000 sf for farm structures? 10, 000 sf pertains to disturbed area for E&S applications. 20, 000 sf is a cut-off for detention requtrements (not E&S or water quality requirements). There is a size of development and a threshoM of peak discharge increase below which there is no benefit to be gained by requiring detention. After discussing this within the Engineering Department, we don't know,if 20, 000 is a consistent measure of this threshold. The State suggests that this be based on some increase in peak discharge compared to pre~tevelopment conditions. See the response to comment JB6. liD: Section 19.3-3809(4): exemption for projects that disturb less than Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 18 i acre]. Jltl0: PAGE 20 - Manageme~?f stream buffers: Ordinance states the optimum vegetation is indigenous riparian forest. Then it states honeysuckle can be grabbed out. Honeysuckle may have been exotic 200 years ago, but is very much indigenous now. It is hardy, it is deep rooted and makes a good mat which blunts the force of the rain drops. It is also cheap and smells good. When it is removed t with herbicide on the banks of the reservoir?) the more vulnerable species used to replace it may very likely die. An example of "wild" ground cover removal is on Rt. 743 where ~t has been replaced by bare soil - an erod'mg unsightly blemish which contributes to the siltation of the reservoir. Honeysuckle is easily controlled to keep it off trees and fences with a weed whip. Much education of property owners is needed m protect streams and reservoirs from excesstve fertilization and from the use of insecticides and herbicides onlawns. Property owners need to be told of the dangers of excessive manicuring of their streams and river banks. Page 162 of Watershed Protection Techniques offers useful tips for edueafmg the public in the allowed uses on stream buffers, the. benefits of buffers and how to maintain them. They suggest signs marking the boundaries of the buffer which ~ns with the land (and land does change hands). Failure to abide by this ordinance must be penalized. Once large trees and understory have been removed thru ignorance or refusal to Comply the replacement of mature trees will be impossible and many years before replanting of small trees will be equal use. A message must be sent to land owners via penalties. With regard to invastve species, I added that their removal mast be done in a way that prevents erosion. However, this does not address the overall issue of invasive species removal. Please note that the ordinance does not actively encourage the removal of these species, but is now explicit in allowing this activity for those interested in doing so. The WRPA ordinance was more or less silent on this topic, and made interpretation difficult. In allowing invasive species removal. 1 took my cue from literature from the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Center for Watershed Protection. The Chesapeake Bay Program recently pta out a publication, Water Ouali~_ Function of the Riparian Forest Bu_~er ~vstems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In a discassion on the sastalnability of forest buffers, the report says that: "[Riparian forest buffer system] management such as periodic harvesting, runoff control maintenance, control of invasive plants, etc., is desirable to maximize performance and ensure long term effectiveness" (page 53). Volume 1. No. 4 of the Center for Watershed Protection's publication, Watershed Protection Techniaues. has an article entitled. "The Architecture of Urban Stream Buffers." In a discassion on the target vegetative community, they conclude. "Removal of exotic shrubs and vines re.g, multiflora rose or honeysuckle) that are often prevalent along the buffer edge should be encouraged" (page 158). At the 1996 Virginia Water Conference, Al Todd. who is the U.S. Forest Set*ice's liaison to the Chesapeake Bay Program, gave a presentation on riparian forest buffers. I specifically asked him about invasive species, and he suggested that.they be removed. In developing this ordinance, we are certainly aware that some people may hack their buffers in order to remove honeysuckle, but others will be very conscioas in wanting to improve the vegetative community and doing this in a sound fashion. I am interested in not preventing the creative enhancement of buffers. At the same time. educational programs should teach people how to do this correctly. The ordinance is not an educational document, it sets' a standard, l hope that educational programs through the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District and others will enhance what the ordinance is trying w achieve. ! agree that the signs are a good idea. [ID: Section 19.3-43(b)(4)]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10. 1996 Draft Page 19 Jltll: PAGE 22: Exemptions to stream buffer requirements. Great care should be given to granting exemptions as mitigation plans do not always work. and who is watching after the house is built and sold? Who will be responsible for waiving this encroachment, requirement? The Mitigation section ~ms been rewritten to be more clear in terms of the purpose of the Stream Buffer and the applicability of mitigation. Mitigation plans will be handled through the Engineering Department, as are the current Water Quality Impact Assessments. Waivers will be granted b5 the Planning Commission, as outlined in Article V, Section 4 (page 36). I added language ~o the waiver section to provide some criteria for granting waivers. [FD: Sections 19.3-46 & 19.3-35]. JH12: PAGE 25: Pro-Rata share contributions: The timing of the construction of these facilities (regional stormwater management facilities) must be understood. Will they be built when a certain number of units are butt in the watershed? ~Will they be built out of CIP funds before development occurs? What happens m stormwater before the facility is built? Who will construct the facility, the Public Works Department? A private company hired by the County? To leave this issue unresolved leaves it open to pressure by developers to construct private facilities which are less well built. Regional or subregional facilities will most likely be built in drainages with existing urban/suburban development where more is expected. In these cases, existing development occurred prior' to any stormwarer regulations or existing stormwater facilities will be retrofit to serve a regional function. Of course, timing is a critical issue. In mast cases, the facility wouM be constructed with ClP funds, with partial reimbursement coming from the pro-rata share contributions as development occurs (so that the facility is actually in place prior to the new developmenO. It is conceivable that pro-rata shares can be collected on planned facilities, so that some development wouM take place prior to construction of the facility, lf new Development Areas are approved, some regional facilities rna~ be built based on hydrologic studies in areas with little existing development. The ordinance establishes the pro*rata share tool and adds regtonal facilities to the "mix." Timing and construction specifics will be handled through the mechanics of the CIP program, llqJ: Sections 19.3-33 & 19.3-40]. JH13: PAGE 29 - Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans: (d) filling w/o a site development plan (e) clearing, gradin~ and filling, construction of temporary access roads w/o site plan. Last year this proposal was made at a ~Planning Commission meefmg and received a lot of criticism from the public. I do not recall a vote beiug taken, and thought it would be brought back for formal action.' I am. therefore. surprised to see this included as a sort of end-mn. Bonding should be required and held long enough to prove the areas so used were returned to their former contour and stabil'~zed. If these conditions are being met. why is it we are very often asked m grant waivers for "man made" critical slope disturbance and we see so many acres of bare eroded land? According to Bobby, these sections have been in the County's E&S code for a long time. The eroszon control program does require bonds to return sites to previous contours and for stabilization. "Man-made ' critical slopes Often exist in a redevelopment situation. The Zoning Ordinance defines these as 25 % or greater, but these are not necessarily sites that were graded based on the E&S code sections referenced above. [FD: Section 19.3-12(e)]. JH14: B - Change of circumstances must be of a compelling nature.., not just the desire of the applicant ro save money. The new plans must protect the public interest. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 20 Changes are often needed based on field, conditions and contingencies. Any changes must still meet the established standards and be approved by the program authority. IFD : Section 19.3-16]. JH15: PAGE 35 - Bondine: I particularly liked the last paragraph under "A" which says the perpetrator and not the public should bear the costs of the damage due to "failure to maintain, or to comply with the requirements of the ordinance or from neglect or carelessness in performance of the work." Much irreparable damage is done m our reservoirs, waterways, em. when poorly compacted berms in detenf~on basins blow out spilling all the silt into the water. There should be a requirement that only as much land should be disturbed in one day as can be stabilized (compacting berms, lining ditches with rock or plastic netting, etc.) before leaving the job for the day. Bonds should be set high enough so that in the event the work is never done correctly and the bond runs for years, it will be for an amount sufficient to cover the work and inflation if the bond is called. I particularly recall the situation on Rt. 29 next to Carrsbrook. I discussed bonding practices with Bobby. He calqulates bonds based on the itemized cost of each facility or practice. According to Bobby, he has never not had enough money to complete a job if the bond is called. It is also his practice to not reduce bonds below what it would cost to complete the work. [FD: Section 19.3~15]. JH16:"B" add permanem before stabilization in the second line. Language added. [FD: Section 19.3-15(e)]. JH17: Page # - Waivers: I would like more information (with examples) of major and minor waivers. Whatever body is charged with granting waivers should remember that they are not there to make every lot a buildable lot regardless of how it is located. The public good should be their paramount concern. Often the need for a waiver could be avoided by choosing a house or other building plan designed to maximize what space they have. I was particularly dismayed to be told that because development on individual lots was generally below the trigger threshold and that our water protection ordinance was just a "feel good" document which really did not do much good. Don't we need a special clause which will govern property adjacent m our reservoirs and drinking water source rivers with stricter standards and enforcements? The following points address the above comments: In the latest version, I did away with the distinction between major and minor waivers. Waivers (exceptionsJ wouM be granted or denied by the Board of Supervisors. and the.rewritten section provides some criteria. I did these things to make exceptions into a "last-ditch" type of request, instead of standard practice (see page 36 ofi the 10/21/96 draft). [!eD: see Section 19.3-32, exceptions granted by BOS except for stream buffer modifications, which ate addressed in Sections 19.3-45 & 19.3-46]. [Note: In subsequent drafts, waivers are renamed "Exceptions' and are granted by the Board of Supervisors.] Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 21 The current Runoff Control Ordinance has no proviston for waivers. The current Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance has a provisionv£or waivers. To date. none have been granted. Buffer encroachments have been handled through Water Quality Impact ~ssessments. Most of these have been fbr stream crossings. In terms of maktng lots buildable, new lots are platted with the buffer in mind, so they should be buildable without encroaching into the buffer. At times with both the WRPA and Runoff Control ordinance, we get into an issue of reasonable use. At these times, we consult with the County Attorney. In the proposed ordinance. I have rewritten the Mitigation Plan section to focus on the importance of keeping the entire buffer, with more leeway given to lots created before the effective date of the ordinance. {FD: Sections t9.3-45 & 19.3-46]. The "trigger" in the Runoff Control Ordinance for runoff permits is 5% impervious cover. Many of the subdivisions tn the drinking water watershed fall below this level, so runoff control permits have not been required. However, the stream setback provisions still apply. The proposed program does not have this trigger. Instead, water 7uality and quantity requirements are based on calculations. This will do away with the "trigger problem. ' Other Conunents Received At May 10. 1996 Focus Groun Meetine - Recorded by Jack Kelsey: In comments, page numbers refer to April 10, 1996 draft. OCI: Page 5 -- Definition for Mitigation Plan not clear. Uses "mitigation" in definition. Changed wording. [FD: Section 19.3-5: definition of mitigation plan]. OC2: Page 5 -- Program authority -- How will UVa get authority when they are part of State program? Joe Bat~ata from DCR reviewed the ordinance and sent me a comment letter (dated May 10, 1996). In that letter, he stated the following: "...we will work with .your Focus Group in anticipation of the new [state] regulations so as to allow UVA to participate fully. DCR is ~till responsible for the review and approval of SWM and E&S plans for the University, however that review will be conducted within the requirements of the Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance, assuming that it is consistent with the (proposed) state SWM regulations." OC3: Page 7 -- Definition for "Water Resources Management Areas." Change name to avoid confusion with Chesapeake Bay "Resource Management Areas." Changed to "Water Resources Areas.' [FD.: Section 19.3-25]. OC4: Page 10 -- Clarify who will designate "locally-important stream," and the general criteria used. Designation by the Planning Commission. Criteria added. See page 1J in 10/21/96 draft. [Note: Locally-Importane Stream concept later dropped from the ordinance based on subsequent Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10, 1996 Draft Page 22 discussions. See comments and responses to the October 21. 1996 draft.] OC5: Page 10 -- For areas of infdl and redevelopmem, will attention be paid to locally-important stream corridors? Yes. I added some clarification to this section (page 11 in lO/21/96 drafl) [see note above].. OC6: Page 17 -- The SCS National Engineering Handbook does not exist anymore, Reference removed. Replaced with reference to "NRCS methods. ~ [FD: Section 19.3-38(e)]. OC7: Page 20 -- Management of Stream Buffers -- What about trees hacked by utility companies that owners want to remove? Section seems less restrictive than previously discussed; opens the door too far for homeowners to clear (reference to invasive species), For utility-hacked trees, see proviston.for removal of dead, diseased, and dying trees. For invasive species removal, see discussion under comment JHlO above, [FD: Section 19.3-43]. OC8: Page 20 -- Mitigation Plans -- Section does not strongly or clearly state the build'rags and septic fields are not permitted in buffers. Will need timing and review criteria for we will be inundated with requests for encroachments. Do we have records of any failed mitighfion plans or what not to do? I rewrote this section to be more clear and m provide criteria and applicability. See discusston for comment MM6 above. Additional clarification for septic fields is in the Exemptions section -- Section H(2). In terms of records of mitigation plans, there aren't many plans at this point (developed under the current WRPA ordinancel. We have learned some things about stream crossings, Also, some interesting projects are in the works, including a constructed wetland and a biofilter, and we should be able to learn from these. [FD: Section 19.3-45(b)~5) & 19.3-46]. OC9: Page 22 -- Exemptions -- Some properties have more than one building site. Does "Sewer Facilities" include sewage disposal systems? Add "deemed necessary by program authority." 'I tried to clari)? all of these things in the new draft. [FD: Section 19.3-45 & 19.3~46]. OCI0: Page 29 -- (d) and (e) -- Is this different from current E&S regulations? Seems to give approval for grading without a site plan. This is the same as the current E&S ordinance, See JH13 above. [FD: Section 19.3-12(e)]. OCli: Page 36 -- Waivers -- Board of Supervisors may want "how, who. and by what criteria" should waivers be detern~med. We should try to work this out ahead of time. I simplified the waiverprocess and added criteria; see page 36 in 10/21/96 draft. FFD: Section 19.3-32]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on April 10. 1996 Draft Page 23 Responses to Comments Received on the October 21, 1996 Preliminary Draft Comments in normal face. Responses in italics Page references are to the October 21, 1996 draft unless otherwise noted. [Reference to the f'mal draft (November 19, 1997) in brackets following the FD notation]. County Attorney's Office Comments: Memo dated l/6/97 from Larry Davis & Gree Kamntner CAI: Ordinance format, numberin~ and style: The next draft of the ordinance should be put into ordinance format and all sections renumbered. Consider placing this ordinance in a new chapter 19.3 of the Albemarle County Code (but see comment fourL Delete italics, hold and change abbreviations (e.g., Tvs.") to words. Be certain that terms of art are used consistently (e.g., "program authority" should always be used instead of "authority." and "erosion and sediment control plan" should always be used instead of %rosion control plan." References in the ordinance to "this ordinance" should be changed to "this chapter." Changes made. CA2: Ordinance applicable to County only: The ordinance should be specific to the County, and not include requirements that pertain to the City. Make corresponding changes throughout the ordinance so that it is County specific (e.g., the last sentence of Article 1 section 1). The 2/25/97 draft is specific to the County. I also produced a 2/27/97 version that is specific to the City This was delivered to David Vanaman and Ron Higgins with a cover memo dated 2/28/9Z CA3: Place E&S in its own article: The E&S provisions are separate and distinct from the other elements of the ordinance. Consider placing the E&S provisions in its own article. E&S pro~sions separated out into Article IL except for bonding, which is still combined with bonding for stormwater facilities, as contained in Article IV [FD: Article I1, includes bonding for E&S items]. CA4: Relationship m zoning: Consider whether certain elements of the ordinance should properly be placed in the zoning ordinance. For example, certain buffering and setback requirements are placed on land in various identified areas which will be identified on a map. Although the Chesapeake Bay Act provides that it is to be implemented through the zoning and subdivision.ordinances of the loc~ility, we know there are a number of localities who implement the Act in a standalone ordinance that is cross- referenced in their zoning or subdivision ordinances. We suggest that any land use requirements of the ordinance that are not specifically enabled in the Chesapeake Bay Act be placed in the zoning ordinance. This issue is still being explored. See the attached correspondence with the Chesapeake Bm. Local Assistance Department {CBLAD) for that agency's perspective on this issue. It may be that the new Virginia Water Protection Act, adopted by the General Assembly this Rear, provides some new guidance or opportunities on this. CAS: General statements of fact: General statements of fact should be eliminated [e.g., see page 11. paragraph 2: "It is recognized that the region's growth management policies aim to focus development Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 24 activities in Development Areas.. 2'). Statements of fact removed. CA6: Article 1. section 1: We recommend'that the purposes of the orcYmance be consolidated into a single location at or near the begiuning of the ordinance, and that the purposes be ~tated as concisely as possible. We also suggest that the ordinance borrow from the purposes set forth in the enabling legislation. All purposes and goals language has been simplified and consolidated into Section 19.3-1. [FD: Section 19.3-3]. CAT: Article 1. section 2: The prevention of water pollution under the County's police powers is enabled under section 15.1-510 of the Code of Virginia to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health or lives of persons residing in the County. If studies allow us to make such a statement, we should do so If not. we recommend that the authority f0t the ordinance be limited to the specific enabling legislation cited in the second paragraph. See new language added to Section 19.3-2 (Authority). [P'D: Section 19.3-3]. CA8: Article 1. section 3: As noted in comment four. this section strengthens the connection of this ordinance to zoning. CAg: Article 1. section 5: We recommend that this section be revised to state: "Chapter 7. Erosion and Sed'unentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II. Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 10.2, Water Resource Protection Areas, of the Albemarle County Code. are repealed." Changes' made. [FD: second paragraph]. CA10: Article 1. section 6: We recommend that this section be deleted. Severability is already covered in section 1-5 of the Albemarle County Code. Section deleted. CAll: Article 1. section 7: We recommend that the ordinance not incorporate del'tuitions by reference but, instead, include all definitions of the enabling legislation that are used in the ordinance. We also recommend that the defmitious mirror the definitions in the enabling legislation, with variations made only for appropriate context. We encourage you to be certain that the following definitions are included: channel: drainage basin: flooding; land development or land development project (same as the de£med term "development ~'%: hnear development; runoff; watershed. We suggest the following terms be revised: agricultural roads ~ you noted at our meeting that this was already being revised: land disturbing activity (consider not including all the exceptions in the enabling Act d~finition and revising the square footage threshold); program authority (section 10,1-562(c) of the Code of Virginia refers to designat'mg a department, not an officer, as the program authority--consider defin'mg the term here. and designating the department in a separate section at or near the beghuimg of the ordinance); target pollutant (reorganize and sknplify the definition to state "Target Pollutant. Total phosphorous." or use the term total phosphorous and eliminate the target pollutant concept). See new definitions and changes to existing definitions. Definition for "land disturbing activity, kept as Comprehensive Water Resources Ordiaance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 25 is based on conversations with Bob Shaw. We feel that the existing exceptions in the State Code are appropriate for Albemarle County and have worked in the past. The difference between "land development" and "development" is confusing. "Land development" is used in the State Code with regard to E&S and the Stormwater Management Act. "Development" is used in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act for application to stream buffers. The ordinance refers to "land development" where E&S or stormwater management are concerned, and "development" with regard to the applicability of stream buffers. [FD: Section 19.3-5 & 19.3-2]. CA12: Article i, section 8: The goals should be-combined with the purposes (see comment 1) The fourth paragraph should be revised to begin: "Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance..." Goals combined into Section 19.3-1. Language added. [FD: Section 19.3-3]. CA13: Article 2. section 1: This section should refer to the County, not the region. Either in this section or elsewhere in the ordinance, the certification requirement of section 10.1-603.9 of the Code of Virginia should be added. It requires that the .applicant "certify that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan.' See Section 19.3-23(g). [FD: Section t9.3-11(a)]. CA14: Article 2, section 2: This section should be reorganized so that there is consistency in its structure (subsection A. erosion and sediment control, is not a physical area such as the areas referred to in subsections B, C, D and E. See prior comments about separat'mg E&S from the remainde~ of the ordinance and consolidating statements of purpose. Consider subjecting the various geographic areas to the same requirements where the water flows into the same basin. In subsection D, the first sentence refers to "land disturbing activities," which is a term of art under E&S law, whereas the subsection appears to pertain to smrmwater runoff, to which the term "development" applies (and which includes inits definition the term "land disturbing activities."/ The reference to "future public water supply reservoir" and to the future Buck Mountain ReserVoir in the first paragraph of subsection D(2) should be deleted. W'tll a map be created that identifies these drainage m'eas? The second paragraph of subsection D(2) is important and should be moved to the front part of the ordinance, and be joined with Article 5. section 6. In subsection E. is there a.difference between "development" and "new development"? E&S has been separated out and goals have been consolidated at the begmmng of the ordinance. The Water Resources Areas are based on land use goals, so it wouM be hard at present to apply uniform standards based on drainage basin. However, this ultimately shouM happen. The revised Comprehensive Plan has some language about having Development Area boundaries follow drainage divides, rather than streams, so land use goals can be consistent within drainage areas. [FD: Section 19.3-3 & 19.3-25]. See the response to CAll above for the difference between "land disturbing activities, and "development., A map exists of water st~ply watersheds for'application to the Runoff Control Ordinance. A new one can be created for~this ordinance if necessary. The second paragraph of subsection D(2) has been moved to the Section 19.3-6 at the front of ttze 2~25/97draft. [FD: Section 19.3-5 & 19.3-26]. CA15: Article 2. section 3: The last sentence of subsection A should be deleted because it is addressed elsewhere in the ordinance. Subsection B uses the term "land development,' which is the term used in Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 26 State law, but this orffmance uses the term "development." We recommend that the ordinance use the State term and definition throughout. Subsections C. D and E refer to -~stormwater management proviszons". Should "provisions" be changed to "facilities" or some other term? The first sentence of subsection F should be revised for clarity. We suggest that subsection G be revised to clarify the meaning of "the maximum extent that is practical.' Again. see response to CAll for commentary on "land development" and "development. ' Other various changes made. See new language of Section 19.3-16(g)for attempted clarity. The original language was taken from draft Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. [ID: Section 19.3-36]. CA16: Article 2. section 4: Consider whether any of the exemptions should be deleted since our ordinance may be more stringent than State law. Because the Handbook is defined in the definitions section of the ordinance, the reference to it in subsection A(41 should be simply to the "Handbook. ' State exemptions maintained based on conversations with Bob Shaw. We would consider any recommendations on exemptions that should be removed. [ID: Sectianol9.3-8(b)]. CA17: Article 2,. section 5: As suggested at our meeting, change "the surface runoff" in the second sentence of subsection A to "the rate and volume of surface runoff.' As noted in comment 11. we believe it would be useful to define "drainage basin" rather than rely on the general description of drainage into reservoirs in Article 2. section 2. In subsection C, it is unclear what is an "area" 0s it a "development"?) and what is a "site." Since the Stormwater Management Law allows the County to impose more stringent substantive requirements, consider whether the County wants to reduce the exemptions it allows. If the exemptions are retained, we suggest that we use the same language as contained in section 10.1-603.8 of the Code of Virginia. Change the reference in subsection D(1) to the "appropriate flood plain regulations adopted by a jurisdiction in the region" to "section 30.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." This section has been substantially reworked based on comments from the state tDCR-DSWC), some recent Att6rney General rulings, and new language added to draft Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (draft date: 1/97). For more details, see comments from John Mlinarcik of DCR-DSWC, dated 2/20/9Z The exemptions section has been rewritten; see Section 19.3-17(d) of the 2/25/97 draft. Other minor language changes made based on this comment. [ID: Section 19.3-38 & 19.3-39]. CA18: Article 2. section 6: In subsection A, we suggest that the term "first flush of pollutants" be defined or be replaced with the more descriptive explanation stated in subsection C. In the third sentence of subsection A. it is unclear what is a "site." The first sentence of subsection B appears to be redundant with the "target pollutant" definition, and the remainder of the subsection appears to be extraneous information that can be deleted. In subsection D(1)-(4)~ we suggest that "Stream Buffers shall include" be changed to "Stream Buffers shall be required on any lands subject m this chapter containing or abutting". In subsection Dt l), the Board, not the Planning Commission. should designate or modify the locally important streams. In the first sentence of subsection E. the term "functional value" should be clarified (I believe that ar our meetIng you said that this referred to its ecological~or biological value). We suggest that subsection E be separated into three numbered subparts. In subsection F. all but the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to be extraneous information to the ordinance and can be deleted. The second paragraph of subsection F should clarify, who determines when Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 27 encroaclwaent is unavoidable, and the conne~t~$~n'i0 the next paragraph in the subsectiou should be ~trengthened. We suggest that the third paragraph of subsection F be revisedto begin "The Mitigation Plan shall". The effective date set forth in the fourth paragraph of subsection F will not be retroactive because, as you noted at our meeting, parts of the ordinance are more stringem than the current ordinance. We suggest that the second paragraph of subsection G be deleted. The text of subsection H(1)(b) should be clarified to explain that the area is being establisbed as a buffer area. We suggest that subsection H(5) be revised so that the "are allowable uses in the stream buffer" (introductory paragraph) and "shall be outside of the Stream Buffer" [paragraph a) language does not appear to be contradictory. In subsection H(7)_ it is unclear whether "Land development" has the same meaning as the defined term "development" or whether it means "land development" as de£med in section 10.1-603:2 of the Code of Virginia. In the second sentence, should "land disturbance" be changed to "land disturbing activity"? "First-flush' and "target pollutant" references have been removed, although the concepts have been retained. Other various deletions and modifications were made according to this comment. [FD: Section 19. 3-39 & 19.3-41 - 19.3-46]. -CA19: :Article 2, section 7: We suggest that this section be rewritten so that it reads like an ordinance rather than as a passage from a report. See modifications to Section 19.3-19. I moved this section to be right behind water quantity and water quality requirements, l?D: Section 19.3-37]. CA20: Article 2. section 8: The pro-rata share contributions establisbed in subsection B and Cis the proper subject of the County's subdivision ordinance (Code of Virginia § 15.1466(A)(10). Therefore. we recommend that this ordinance provide nothing more than a reference to the appropriate section o£ the subdivision ordinance (section 18-22). Because "fees" are different that "pro-rata share contributions." we recommend that subsection C be revised to delete references to "fees." Included reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code and Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, based on a recommendation from Ron Keeler. I also gave Ron the language to add to the Subdivision Ordinance for pro-rata share. Reference to fee deleted. See Section 19.3-21. [FD: Section 19.3-40], CA21: Article 3. section 1: With respect to subsection A. section 10.1-562(I) of the Code of Virginia requires that the E&S fee schedule be adopted by ordinance. With respect to subsection B. we suggest that a fee provision be added. See section 10.1-603.10 Of the Code of Virginia. which establishes the scope of the services and ceiling for which fees may be charged. The fee schedule has been added to Section '19.3-9(o). For stormwater provtsions, the review fee is built into the overall site plan submission and review procedure, so no new fee was added to this ordinance. If, in the future, we determine that a fee is necessary ro cover plans that don't go through that formal process, we can add one at that time. A fee was added for stormwater inspections; see Section 19.3-24(c). IFD: Section ] 9.3-17 & 19.3-34: fees added for stromwater plans and inspections]. CA22: Article 3. section 2: Consider whether you want subsection A(1) to state that the review of the plan will be done by the certified plan reviewer, as provided by State law. rather than by the more general "program authority." In subsection A(2), we recommend that language be added that parallels section 10.1-563(B) of the Code of Virginia, which provides that the written disapproval shall specify the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 28 modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. Consider whether subsection A(3) is duplicative of Afftcle 2, section 1. What happens if there is a use, change in use, development for which a site plan or subdivision plat is not required? See section 10.1-565. which identiftes the prerequisites for an E&S permit to issue. [n subsection A(4), add "and sediment" after "Erosion" and delete "in accordance with law.' In subsection A(5)(a), add "and this chapter". Consider changing the procedural requirements under subsection B so that they are identical (to the extent possible) to those in subsections A(1) and (2). Section 10. D603.4(4) of the Code of Virginia is broad enough to allow us to have similar procedural requirements. All E&S certification language is in Section l9.3-14. We would rather keep the plan review section with the more general "program authority" language tl have conferred with Bob Shaw on thisl. Written disapproval language from the State Code has been added to Section 19.3-tO(b). [FD: Section 19. 3-12]. If a use, change in use, development, etc. occurs that does not require a sire plan or subdivision plat, then that activity is regulated by E&S as a land disturbing, activity, and an E&S permit may apply independent of whether the project is considered a site plan or subdivision by other Course? ordinances. [ID: Section 19.3-12 (e)J. With regard to making plan review similar for E&S and stormwater plan& [ made changes based on language in the Stormwater Management Act. See Section 19.3-23. Other minor edits were made based on the commem. [ID: Section 19.3-28]. CA23: Article 4. section 1: In subsection A. can the ordinance be triggered when there is no plan of development required? How are non-facilities related measures (e.g., best management practices) addressed? In subsection B, we suggest that "designated agents" be changed to "certified inspector,- which is defined in the ordinance. With respect m your question as to whether localities are required to give the notice provided for in subsection B. the answer is yes, and is required by sections 10.1-566(A~ and 10.1-603.11 (Al of the Code of Virginia. The ordinance can be triggered when no plan of development is required. See new language in Section 19.3-24(a). "Certified Inspectors" apply only to E&S, so "designated agent" was retained for srormwarer inspections. Requirement to give notice duly noted and language~retained in the ordinance. [ID: Section 19.3-47 & 19.3-48]. CA24: Article 4, sectiqn 2: We recommend that this section be rewritten to separate E&S from stormwater management, that these provisions mirror what is authorized by the enabling legislation (E&S~ stormwater management, Chesapeake Bay Act, and our general authority which is codified in section 1-6 of the Albemarle County Code). ! believe I have addressed these concerns by separating E&S into its own article, and by. rewriting other sections to more accurately reflect enabling code language. See Sections 19.3-12 (E&S) and 19.3-25 rstormwater). .[FD: Article II, Division 2 (E&S) and Article [Il, Division 3 (stormwater)]. CA25: Article 4, section 3: For violations of the E&S provisions, section 10.1-562(J) of the Code of Virginia provides that if the County adopts a schedule of fees. the civil penalty is in lieu of any criminal sanctions. With respect to subsection A, the maximum criminal penalty authorized under the stormwater management enabling legislation is $1,000 and 30 days' imprisonment andis not, therefore, a class 1 misdemeanor. With respect m subsection D. we recommend that the term "regulation or order" (which applies to the State Board (Section 10.1-569(f) of the Code of Virginia) be replaced with language such as Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 29 "condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any provision of this chapter". As noted earlier, the fee schedule referred to in subsection F must be adopted by ordinance Under the E&S enabling legislation and if adopted il is in lieu of criminal sanctions. Bob Shaw and I have conferred on a schedule of fees for civil penalties for E&S violations. There has never been such a provision in our E&S ordinance. Bob has historically used bonding to make sure E&S measures are completed. However, there is no objection to adding a schedule of civil penalties in this ordinance if the County Attorney's Office feels that this is a valuable tool to have at our disposal. Because the language is very legalistic in the Code. we need assistance from the County Attorney's Office to draft this section for inclusion in the new ordinance. [FD: Section 19.3-23]. In the srormwater section, reference to a class 1 misdemeanor has been removed (see Section 19.3-26). Other suggested language changes also made. [FD: Section 19.3-50]. CA26: Article 5. sections 1.2.4 and 6: We suggest that sections 1, 4 and 6 be moved to the front of the ordinance, and that section 2 be moved m the section that designates and charges the program authority. The new Article IV contains only sections for bonding and exceptions (waivers). Other provisions were moved to appropriate sections. [FD: Various sections of Article I, Section 19.3-18, Section 19.3-32]. CA27: Article 5. section 1: Note that, at least for the E&S elements of the ordinance, the administrative procedures must comply with section 10.1-570 of the Code of Virginia and otherwise be consistent with the ordinance. See the new "Program Authority' section tSection 19.3-3). [leD: Section 19.3-6]. CA28: Article 5. section 3: We suggest that the heading be changed from "Bonding" to "Security~ or "Bonding and Other Security." The second sentence of the second paragraph of subsection A should be deleted because it is beyond the purpose of a bond. With respect to subsection C, since the subsection pertains to "practices" we recommend that the text parallel the language of section /0.1-603.8(A) of the Cede of Virginia, which requires refunding within 60 days "of the completion of the reqmremems of the approved stormwater management plan". Changes made. See Section 19.3-27(c). [ID: Section 19.3-15 & 19.3-30]. CA29: Article 5. section 4: With respect to subsection A, consider having waivers handled administratively, and allowing an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. In any event, a request for a waiver should not be considered by the Planning Commission (unless the ordinance is. in fact. a zoning ordinance). We suggest that subsection B(2) be revised m state "the waiver granted is the m~nimmn necessary m afford relief'. "Waivers" have been renamed "Exceptions," based on language tn the draft Virginia Stormwater Management Regulatious. In the rewritten section, exceptions are granted by the Board of Supervtsors. This procedure is chosen because the ordinance contains a lot of administrative procedures_for allowing flexibility in design and application ~e.g., mitigation plans, detailed exemption section for stream buffers. etc.1, and exceptions shouM be a last-ditch effort rather than a day-to-day administrative procedure. Appeal to the BOS makes exceptions more formal and will promote recourse to other administrative provisions of the ordinance first. [ID: Section 19.3-32]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 30 CA30: Article 5. section 5: With the suggestions ~ve previously made. subsections A and B are already addressed by the ordinance and subsection C can be addressed by incorporating it into the section designating the appropriate County department as the program authority. It seems a good idea organigationally to keep this in a separate section and adding it to the E&S article. [FD: Section 19.3-6tc)]. Robert Shaw, Erosion Control Officer. Memo dated 2/19/97 Article I: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 19.3-7. Definitions. RSI: A~reement in lieu of a plan: The definition in the state code reads. "A contract between the plan- approving authority". Our ordinance reads, "A contract between the program authority". This should be changed to read as stated inthe Virginia Code. In the Code, 'plan-approving authority' includes the "program authority." Since this ordinance makes the Engineering Department the ''program authority "I don't think there's a need to further define a "plan- approving authority." The distinction would be important in a jurisdiction where the plan-approving authority and program authority are different entities. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RS2: Agricultural roads: I disagree on trying to set a construction standard to determine what is and what is not an agricultural road. The State Attorney General has given his opinion that an agricultural road is exempt from regulation. In my opinion no matter what standard you try m set, if the road is used to provide farm access and to till, harvest, andremove crops from the farm, then it is a bonafide agricultural road and is exempt. This should be discussed further with the County Attorney's Office. The definition, and therefore standard, for agricultural roads was added so that people couM not buiM roads under the agricultural exemption with no E&S control, and then proceed to develop the proper~ (when in some cases, development is the original intent). However, the legalities may prohibit us from including this definition. I have sent this comment on to the County Attorney's Office, and have asked them'to look into this issue further. [FD: Section 19,3-5J. RS3: Applicant: ]?his should be reworded to conform to the state code. Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities m commence or approval of a Stormwater Management/BMP Plan. Change made. [FD: Section 19.3-5J. RS4: Land Dismrbin~ Activity: I object to reducing the land disturbing activity from 10,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet within the Mountain Overlay District. This is not necessary. As this will unnecessarily increase our already undemtaffed workload, will require the submittal of an erosion control plan for the addition of out structures to an already existing dwelling or an addition to existing structure. Land disturbing activities below 10,000 square feet generally do not create an erosion control problem. The existing regulation of 10,000 square feet will already inclnde the construction of combination driveways and dwellings. The threshold was switched back to 10,000 square feet based on this comment. The Mountain Overlay District will only come rote existence if the Board adopts the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Otherwtse, Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 31 reference to the Mountain District will be removed frora the Water Ordinance. [FD: Section 19.3-5. definition of land disturbing activity; threshold in Mountain Overlay is 2,500 square feet]. Article II: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RSS: Section 19.3-8. Technical Criteria: (a)(5) This should be changed m read. "In the case of construction of single family residences": in lieu of "In the case of individual lots in an approved subdivision". (b) (1) The first sentence in the second paragraph which reads. "Clearing of agricultural areas of grearer than ten-thousand (10,000) square feet when such areas are not tilled and planted with agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops within sixty (60) days shall be deemed to be land disturbing activities subject m the provisions of this chapter." This should be removed as it is covered under the previous paragraph. Changes made. [FD: Section 19.3-13 & 19.3-8('o)(7)]. RS6: Section 19.3-9. Plan Submission Requirements: This could be written to state that fees to cover the cost of plan submission and inspection fees are to be paid as set by the Board of Supervisors. This would prevent the ordinance from having m be amended every fane there was a fee change. I also recommend that the maximum fee of $1,000 be removed. This requirement has been removed from the state code. I certainly concur with the idea ofnot setting fees in the ordinance, due to the difficulty tn amending the .fee schedule. However, the State Code suggests that the fee schedule be adopted by ordinance t'Section 10.1-562(1)). Maybe the County Attorney's Office can assist in making this change, if it is possible. [FD: Section 19.3-1 Z' fee schedule retained in ordinance]. RS7: Section 19.9-10. Plan Review Procedures: (4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful, earth disturbing activity. This was an inquiry from Babs Huckle about why this was allowed: This portion.of the law allows for waste areas within a reaso~table haul distance of a site which has an excess of excavation or unsuitable material, which is a legitimate problem. I agree with this section as our plans receive excellent technical review for grading, drainage, erosion control, and zoning regulations. [FD: Section 19.3-12 (e) (5)]. RS8: Section 19.3q 1. Maintenance and Inspection: a) As stared in the Virginia Code. the last sentence should read the owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be given notice of the inspection. Change made. [FD: Section 19.3-20(d)]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 32 RS9: Section 19.3-12. Compliance and Enforcement: Run Keeler and Babs Huckle asked the question - "Can an aggrieved person appeal an approved plan as well as a disapproved plan?" There is no provision in the state code for this. I have never had this happen. Generally objections are to the site plan or subdivision approval and not the erosion control plan. Citizens are allowed and have attended the scheduled erosion control meetings intended to discuss any concerns. [FD: Section t9.3-18]. RS10: Section 10.1-562(i~ VA State Code - Civil Penal _ty: The County Attorney suggested that we incorporate civil penalties into the County Code. I do not object to this. See comment and response CA25 above concerning civil penalties for E&S. Address'mg Comments From Mary Joy Scala: RSll: Sectionq. Road Specifications and Standards: Road specifications and standards for the Mountain Ordinance should be placed in the subdivision ordinance. These requirements will need to have a technical review by the engineering staff. Adequate channels are already spoken to in the Handbook Regulations VR-525-02-00. Addressing Comments From Ron Keeler: RS12: Section-2. Compliance and Enforcement: Enforcement is already adequately spoken to. RS13: Stop Work Orders: A question was asked if a stop work order was issued if a disapproved plan or specification was appealed by a downstream owner, ff a plan is disapproved, then a permit would not be issued to begin a land disturbing activity; therefore, a stop work order would not be necessary unless the perm~ttee started without obtaining an erosion control permit. RSI4: Notification: A question was asked about how downstream owners are notified. VA State Code does not reqmre notification of adjacent owners. I have never had an objection to a disapproved plan, Only approved ones. Most objections are why does the County allow the activity at all and persons trying to stop the activity because they do not approve of it. Generally complaints by the public would occur if their property was damaged which is provided for in other sections of the law. RS15: Appeals: Ron Keeler stated that the owners were not allowed any substantive basis for appeal. If the aggrieved owner is not satisfied with the Board of Supervisors decision, the decision may be appealed to the Circuit Court. RS16: Thirty (30) Day Appeal Period: It was stated that the appeal period was excessive, that work could start while the appeal was being made. In the case of a permittee appealing, the erosion control permit would not be issued In the event of an owner waiting for their appeal to be heard, it is my opinion that the owner would have to obtain injunctive relief to stop the permit from being issued. This question may have to be answered by the County Attorney's office. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 2t. 1996 Draft Page 33 Note: Generally appeals would be made by the permittee due to stringem requirements of specifications or an interpretation of the law as it would apply m an erosion control plan approval. An objection might occur from a downstream owner if we interpreted that an activity was exempt and a plan was not required. Ron Keeler's questions seem to be related m submittals to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for preliminary approval and would not apply m an erosion control plan review. The erosion control plan review is no different from the technical plan review by the engineering staff or planning staff after the Planning Comm'tssion or Board approval. Erosion control plan review is based on standards and specifications. Babette Thorpe. Piedmont Environmental Counc'fl, Memo dated 11/14/96 BT1: Replacing perennial streams with "Locally important streams" for the purposes of determining buffers in the Development Areas and Areas of Infill. and Redevelopment. Given the def'mition of "locally important streams," it is possible that perennial streams may be excluded from the new category. In other words, streams Which once automatically carried with them a 100-foot buffer would now have m be designated "locally important streams" in order to receive this level of protection. Jack Kelsey pointed out that the new designation would allow the Planning Commission to designate and protect intermittent streams, if it so desired. If this change is intended to extend the protection granted perennial streams te some significant intermittent streams, then I suggest that the defmition of "locally important streams" be revised to state that perennial streams are included automatically by virtue of their being perermial, I wonder whether we have the enabling authority to require 100-foot buffers around interminem streams draining outside the watershed of public drinking water impoundments. The Chesapeake Bay Act clearly enables us to require buffers along tributary streams, which the Act defines as "any perennial stream that is so depicted on the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute topographic quadrangle map..." The soume of authority for the runoff control ordinance appears to be tied to public water and sewer systems, It seems more likely that creating a new category of strearns will result in fewer streams carrymg the 100- foot buffer than are currently protected. While there may be few perennial streams in the currem growth areas, potential growth areas may contain more blue-line streams. For example, the North Fork of the Rivanna River bounded one potential growth area recommended by Planning staff. If this- ordinance were adopted, it appears that the Planning Commission would have to designate the North Fork a "locally important stream" before the 100-foot buffer would apply. One of the reasons given for considering designating fewer streams with buffers is the need to encourage development in the growth areas. We heartily agree that regulations should encourage compact, attractive development in the growth areas and we have suggested some regulatory changes to help this happen. For the following reasons, however, we believe that the County should retain the 100-ft. buffers along perennial streams in the growth areas: a, buffers are unlikely to lower residential density, gtven the fact that dwelling units may be clustered on more easily developed land: b. leaving the buffer makes it less likely that houses and property will be damaged during floods, and gives the stream or river room to meander without causing concern: Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 34 c. buffers reduce small drainage problems and complaints; c. keeping the buffers becomes particularly important if other regulations, especially the regulations concerning critical slopes, are relaxed. While BUMP could theoretically keep silt from reaching the waterway, the County does not have the staff to see that they are installed and maintained properly. d. buffers are an important amenity, particularly in residential neighborhoods and generally have a positive impact on property values. e. buffers provide impormm habitat: f. buffers can also protect associated wetlands and steep slopes. We're not the only ones who think that stream buffers belong in urban areas. According te Tom Schueler. Center for Watershed Protection "urban stream buffers are an integral element of any local stream protection program." In summary, reqmrmg buffers around intermittent streams in the growth areas is a good idea if the County has the requisite enabling authority. The County should make sure. however, that in making this change it does not give up the protection it currently extends to blue-line streams in the growth areas. In response to this commem, l will refer to a portion of the memo that was circulated with the latest draft (February 25, 1997): Previously, we had employed the notion of applying stream buffers only on "Locally-Important Streams' in Development Areas in order to provide some flexibility of buffer provisions where development and infill is most encouraged. Locally-lmportant Streams were to be destgnated by the Planning Commission or Board in lieu of requiring buffers automatically on all perennial streams. Based on discussions with various people in the community and correspondence with the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, I decided not to use the Locally-Important Stream concept in the current draft. The main objection was that the process of designating these strearns would become political. One Commission or Board could designate every intermittent stream in the Development Areas as Locally-Important, while another might remove the designation from even important perennial streams. While not employing the Locally-Important Stream concept, I tried to retain the notion that there should be more flexibility in applying and administering buffer provisions in the Development Areas. This was accomplished by modifying the Mitigation Plan section for buffer encroachments tSection 19.3-19(c) on page 24) and by adding language to the definition of "perennial stream. (page 7). These changes make buffer flexibility mare administrative (similar to the current system of requiring Water Quality Impact Assessments for buffer encroachmentsj and less of a political process of designation. IFD: Section 19.3-41 & 19.3-45, 19.3-46] Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 35 BT2: How will Areas of Inffll and Redevelopment be def'med? Will that designation follow the Chesapeake Bay Act's definition of Intensely Development Areas, which requires that one of several conditions exist? See Section 19. 3-15 of the 2/25/97 draft for the designation process for Areas of Infill and Redevelopmem. The section lists several criteria, which are modeled in parr on the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Manual's criteria for Intensively Developed Areas. However. it must be stressed that the County's process for exploring the issue of infill is underway and ongoing, and this section is written with some flexibiliry so that the outcome of that process can be used in the implementation of this provision of the water ordinance. Further guidance and/or criteria can be placed in the Design Manual. [FD: Section 19.3- 25(b)1. BT3:. I recommend that the proposed ordinance be submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board for comment and a determination of compliance with the Bay Act. If the ordinance does comply, then its provisions can be enfomed against state agencies which are otherwise exempt from local land use regulations. See the attached correspondence with CBLAD o~ this topic. BT4:. Section 6H(4) exempts activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation from the required buffer, as does the current ordinance. Although the actual Chesapeake Bay regulations have a similar exemption provision, there is nothing in the statute which mandates such an exemption. I recommend revising the ordinance to provide that the exemptions of Section 6H(4) are available only to those projects where it has been demonstrated that the "project is essential to the public health, safety or welfare and that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the project as proposed which would have a lesser impact upon the quality of state waters within Albemarle County." Having some type of County oversight over VDOT activities has certainly been a juicy topic the last several years, especially with Moormans River projects. I'm not sure how this wouM work, given that VDOTis exempt from just about all County regulations. I will consult with the County Attorney's Office on adding the proposed language or something similar. [FD: VDOT is primarily exempt]. John Mlinarcik. Denartment of Conservation & Recreation. Letter dated February 20, 1997 JM(B)I: It would be beneficial to provide additional inspection information and to list what items will be inspected during construction of a S.M. facility. These are the types of details that will become parr of the Design Manual. We are trying to be deliberate with this ordinance that the ordinance itself be limited to technical standards and essential legal information. The Design Manual can contain additional material on how the ordinance is to be implemented. The reason this is important is that we don't want to have ro go through an ordinance amendment even ~me some detail of implementation is changed, such as the process for inspections. [FD: Section 19.3-48]. J'M0I)2: A recent decision by the state Attomey General's office revealed that control of a (10) year storm event will remain a requirement of a local stormwater program. Therefore. proposed water quality provisions for the categories of water supply protection area and other rural land will need to be revised. The water quamity criteria Section has been revised accordingly (Section 19.3-17). although 1 do this under Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 2L 1996 Draft Page 36 some amount of protest The reason we have identified "Water Resources Areas' in this ordinance is because different areas have different stormwater objectives/needs based on land use characteristics and goals, Development in the areas identified as "Water Supply Protection Areas" and "Other Rural Land" will, by nature, be low density rural subdivisions. Historically, we have not seen a lot of flooding problems with these types of developments since development is primarily outside of the floodplain and is of a density that does not increase peak flows to the extent expected in urban/suburban areas (Development Areasj. We acknowledge that a lO-year storm detention requirement is for flood control purposes (as opposed to water quality). To apply this criteria to rural areas seems like a solution looking for a~ problem. Furthermore, providing facilities for 10-year detention will by necessity, in most cases, mean going to a small Stream or drainage and tearing it up to build a dam. It seems to me that more is lost than gained when .you take a small rural-area stream and tear it up to put in a detention facility that will have questionable benefit to downstream properties. That is my protest statement, but I suppose the Attorney General's. ruling must be adhered to, fFD: Section 19.3-38(a) & 09]. JM(B)3: I will defer any comments of the proposed water quality criteria to Joe Battiata who is work~ing on the development of the new regulations. JM(B)4: To elaborate on a comment made for the previous draft "unless phasing subsequently occurs" is intended to provide substantive indication that sequential phasing of smaller project areas Oess that the minimum S.M. "kick-in" area) cannot be done to circumvent the intent of the ordinance. See revisions made to Section 19.3-17(d)(4). [FD: Section 19.3-3809(4)], JM(B)$: In regard to a maximum S.M. fee. the basis should be on the extent that a locality wishes to pass the fee on to an applicant. ($1000) remains the maximum allowable. I discussed the issue of fees with Jack Kelsey. At present, all fees are handled through the Planning Department when a plan comes in to cover all review costs across departments. I believe we wdl stick with this process unless it seems that a lot of reviews are not going through this process. The reason is that adding an Engineering Department-specific fee would increase the bureaucracy of plan review. Please note that a stormwater inspection fee has been provided for since this is an item that is not currently covered by current programs. See Section 19.3-24(0. [FD: Section 19.3-34; fees added for stormwater plans and inspections based on input from County Attorney, County Executive's Office. and results of 1991 Fee Schedule Review]. Ron Keeler, Dep~ent of Planning & Community Development. Memo dalted December 9, 1996 RKI:. Will the proposed ordinance revise, in any manner, the current subdivision~review process? Currently, a final plat for a subdivision which involves construction/improvement of a private road (for which there are design standards) or a public road is not signed unt'fl E & S approval has been granted. Many subdivisions do not require road improvements and are s~gned without precedent E & S approval. The only change is the requirement for a stormwater/BMP plan, which must be approved prior to plan or plat approval {which is similar to the current system whereby an applicant must recetve "Engineering Department approval'). E&S procedures will remain similar to current practice. [FD: Section 19.3-30]. RK2:. The term "Program Authority" is used throughout the text and I believe is also used in the State Code. I believe it essential to designate one official to administer the ordinance and suggest that. if there Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments &Responses on October 21, I996 Draft Page 37 2 are no legal issues involved, the term "Program Administrator" be substituted for "Program Authority" where appropriate. See comment and response ro CAll (County Attornek comment #11 in 1/6/97 memo). Based on the County Attorney's Office guidance. I provided a definition for "program authority" and added language to Section 19.3-3 designating the Engineering Department as the program authority~ [FD: Section 19.3-6]. RK3:. Appeal of administrative decision would be m the Board of Supervisors while waivers would be allowable by the Pla~'mg Commission. I would emphasize that the Board deliberately determined not to provide any waiver provisions for the 'runoff control ordinance.' since that was intended as a performance ordinance. For this reason and m provide consistency, it may be appropriate for the Board to consider appeals and waivers. See comment and response to CA29 (County Attorney's comment #29). The waivers sections has been modified to be more consistent with terminology in the state stormwater regulations. "Exceptions' are to be granted by the Board. [FD: Section 19.3-32]. With regard to having a formal waiver or exception process where none currently exists (for Runoff Control setbacks), we understand that there may be positive and negative aspects to this. I will refer to my explanation to Arthur Petrini of RWSA in my letter to him on this subject: The Runoff Control Ordinance has no waiver provtsion: In fact, not even the Board of Supervisors can grant any deviation or waiver from the ordinance. There is a positive side to this from the standpoint of reservoir protection in that bureaucrats cannot incrementally compromise the program by granting unwarranted waivers. However, over the years'we have continually run into implementation problems when confronted with real-worM situations, even when water qualit3 stands to be zmproved by allowing some flexibility (for instance, by requiring some type of water quality treatment in exchange for a minor encroachment into a stream setback). The proposed ordinance does have a formal process whereby some stream buffer encroachments are allowed with mitigation. The ordinance is clear on conditions that must be met, and the Board of Supervisors is the body specified to grant waivers tso that they become a last-ditch effort rather than everyday practice). Article I: GENERAL PROVISIONS: RK4: Section 1: Purpose and Development of the Ordinance (p. 1) may be better entitled as Purpose and Intent to be consistent with other County ordinance language and also because nothing in the article speaks directly to its "development." The first sentence speaks to "prevention" of erosion, flooding, and pollution which are naturally occurnng events, so perhaps "minimization of" should be substituted for "prevention." Also, please see defininon of "Best Management Practice." This whole section was changed as per County Attorney comm~nls. See the new Section 19.3-1 [Purposes of the Ordinance). [FD: Section 19.3-3]. Section 7: Del'tuitions contains several provisions which may warrant further consideration: RKS: Agent (p. 2): It is suggested that this definkion be deleted as it is included under the definition of Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 38 Applicant and that Applicant be substituted for Agent throughout the text. Also. the term may cause confusion since "agent" is generally used to describe County employees elsewhere in the County Code. Change made. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RK6: Agricultural lands (p. 3) as defined would include forestry lands under the terms of "plant growth of any k'md." Please review regulations regarding trees and crops to determine if this definition is intended. It is strongly recommended that definitions be consistent with those in the zoning and subdivision ordinances and other County ordinances where practical. Changed definition to be consistent with zoning ordinance. Also changed definition for "crop land" so the stream buffer section will work for that application. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RKT: Agricultural Roads tp. 3) requires that the road be used "exclusively" for a listing of certain uses which does not include access to the farm residence(s). Does this mean t~ the County ~s prepared to allow more than one entrance to a state road from a property zoned RA R~aral Areas ? ~is would'be contrary m currem practice. I believe the intent of this provision is m avoid premature construction of roadways for purposes other than agricultural usage. If this is, in fact, the intent, then I do not believe that allowing construction of a 25 foot travelway will prevent such situation. I do believe that any provision of any ordinance which attempts to distinguish activity by "profession" will be very difficult to enforce. The definition has been changed. Also see new definition for "road cross-section. ' Bob Shaw does not agree with this attempt to provide a standard for agricultural roads (see Bobby's comments above~. I have referred this issue to the County Attorney for further review. The intent of providing the standard is to have E&S control for construction projects that exceed a given scale, and this would apply whether or not the road is subsequently used for development. IFD: Section 19.3-5]. RK8: Certified inspector; Certified plan reviewer: Certified program administrator {pp. 3-4)all speak to persons enrolled in an educational program. As I read these definitions, ff enrolled in one of these programs, these people would be authorized automatically by language of the ord'mance to make decision. Some additional language may be desirable to certify that any decision ~s subject to approval by one designated person (See Program authority). These definitions come directiy from the State Code based on recent changes to the E&S Act. See Section 19.3-14for the roles/authority of these people. I don't think that the definitions otherwise give these people the authority that is specifically delegated to the "program authority" in the rest of the ordinance. IFD: Section 19.3-5]. RIO: Crop Land Ip. 4)by defining as "Agricultural land" with the only exclusion as "dense grass cover" would include alt other uses such as livestock, poultry, forestry, etc. I believe that cereals are considered as "grasses" and corn is a cereal. Would corn be considered a "dense grass cover ?' (See comments for Agricultural lands) Definition clarified. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RK10: Erosion impact area (p, 4) includes wording winch relates to "shorelines where the erosion results from wave action or other coastal processes." Is that applicable to Albemarle County ? If not. you may Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 39 wish to delete the wording. Deleted reference to coastal processes. [FD: Section 19.3-5J. RKll: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (p. 4): Recommend that "measures" be substituted for "decisions" in the last sentence. Change made. [FD.. Section 19.3-5: decisions reinserted based on State Code language]. RK12: ImpervJous Cover ~p. 5): I believe that the Engineering Department has determined graveled areas to be impervious coverage and language to that effect in this definition could avoid continuation of debate which I have observed regarding that determination. Added language ro definition. [ID: Section 19.3-5]. RK13: Necessary Infrastructure (p. 5):Consider changing the language in first phrasing as follows: Components cfa s~te development ....... to ensure protectmn of ........... ~ ............... environmental features as may be necessary, to protect the general health, safety, and welfare." Not all necessary infrastructure is needed for the protection of environmental features. An example would be emergency access roads. However, they are still an allowable use within the stream buffer. [FD.. Section 19.3-5]. RK14: Plan of development (p. 6)could be amended to further clarify that approval is required as to precedent to activity. Definitions should include a definition of "clearing." Recommend the following wording: "The process for site plan or subdivision plat review to ensure compliance with Section t9.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this ordinance pr:,c,r ;c, an;,' reauired as orecedent to clearing or grading of a site a~_~. defined by this ordinance or the issuance of a building permit. Definition changed. In the definition, I tied "clearing" with "land disturbing activity, "which is defined. so I don't think an independent definition ts needed for "clearing." [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RK15: Sewage disposal system (p. 6): "Alternative discharging sewage system" should be define& Recommend that the second sentence be rephrased as follows: This definition shall include any. sewage disposal fac~l:.t~c; facility which does not result in a potnt source discharge and 0ny alternative discharging sewage systems. For -,v,~,~c,~. ,: pc,,,--& ~ rcqd~rcd and. shall specifically exclude any sewage dis~)osal facility which reanires a mint source discharge or any alternative discharging sewage system__ Changed definition based on subsequent discussion with Ron Keeler. [ID: Section 19.3-5J. RK16: Stormwater management/BMP plan (p. 7): These measures a more a control of the rate as opposed to the volume of stormwater runoff. Consider change to first sentence: A document that describes .............. ontrols for . :-. -:~ - ~'~ management of the rate of · tormwater dischar~ e and best management practices for water quality protection. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21, 1996 Draft Page 40 Change made. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. RK17: Stream buffer (p. 7): Consider rephrasing as follows: or is otherwise sensitive tG ~mpacta changes which may result in significant degradation to the qumity of state waters. Changes made. [FD: Section 19.3-5]. ARTICLE II: WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT RK18: Section 2. Water Resources Areas. (Pp. 10-11) sets out two purposes for water resources areas in development areas and also suggests usage of the Open Space Plan for designation of locally-unportant streams. I do not believe the Open Space Plan was fashioned solely to the purposes set forth in the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance. While all of the streams may be appropriate for designation. qualifying as follows would make it clear that these streams would be evaluated (or re-evaluated) in accord with the purposes of the ordinance: Guidance in designating locally-important streams shall also be provided by the Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resources Plan to the extent that such designations are consistent with the nurposes of this section Reference to locally-important streams has been removed. RK19: B. EXEMPTIONS (pp. 16-17): Under State Code. aren't certain public utilities and railroads also exempt from local E & S regulations ? See definition for "land disturbing activity' and accompanying definition Section 10.1-560 of the Virginia Code. FFD: Section 19.3-8(b)]. RK20: A. Application of Provisions (p. 17): Please see commems for definition of Stormwater management/BMP plan. Consider rewording of second sentence as follows: These facilities shall be designed and constructed such that the rate of surface runoff from the developed site shall be no greater .the rate of runoff prior to the development. Change made. [FD: Section 19.3-38]. RK21: D. EXEMPTIONS (P. 18) would exempt "subdivisions with a total area of less than one (1 ~ acre.' Under this language, any rural subdivision would be subject to the provisions while much urban development, though involving substanf~ally greater impervious area would be exempt. For example, urban commercial property could be subdivided and developed entirely with impervious features except for those areas of required landscaping and exempted, while a rural 2 acre or larger lot would be required to comply with the regulations. Since the design parameters are different for rural v. urban land and since urban infill is an objective of the current Comprehensive Plan. this may be an appropriate measure. This is an interesting insight. It is my belief that the focns of small development sites (commercial) shouM be water quality, which is nor exempted in this ordinance. I think that detention for small sites or Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 41 assemblages of small sites is best handled regionally or sub,regionally, rather than having a detention facility for every acre. In this way, tssues of ttmtng and channel erosion are better addressed. W~tth regard to single family residences, all are exempted from water quantity whether they are urban, suburban. or rural For subdivisions, detention is to be designed for the entire project instead of one lot at a time. See Section 19.3-1609 and Section 19.3-17(d). [FD: Section 19.3-38 & 19.3-39]. RK22: (3) Water Supply Protection Areas (p. 20~: Consider for clarification changing the first sentence to read: All natural intermittent and oerennial streams .... Added language, except for "natural, ' which ~is in the definition for intermittent stream. [FD : Section 19.3- 41(o)1. RK23: E. MANAGEMENT OF STREAM BI, FIlleRS (P. 21) in the second paragraph states that "Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels may be removed where stream bank erss~on is a current or potential problem." You may wish to consult with the County Attorney's office on this, but Ibelieve there is a State Code requirement which makes it incumbent upon a property owner to remove obstructions from (navigable ?) streams without qualification as to erosion considerations. I think the notion of maintaining very large and old trees along streams is a mixed bag. Wtfile competent, they do stabilize the bank and retain soil. however, when they fall. the huge loot structure can release- tons of soil into a stream and change the bank by several feet. Large trees are difficult to remove without using heavy equipment which may cause further problgms. While natural process is favored from an environmental viewpoint, good stewardship can be better in some cases. Allowing cutting of such trees but not stump removal could avoid such situations. I consulted with Greg Kamptner on thefirstpoint, and he said he believes there ts no conflict with the State Code. On the second point. ! added some language. The issue of riparian buffers and their value has received a lot of attention recently, particularly through the Chesapeake Bay Program. I wouM refer in particular to a very good report, "Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed" (Chesapeake Bay Program, August 1995). My own emp~rica~ experience confirms the value of riparian buffers for providing streambank stability. Time and again !have seen eroding streambanks where most of the riparian trees have been removed and only turf is maintained m the edge of the stream. In any case, I think the ordinance is flexible enough to accommodate various stewardship practices along streams. [FD: Section 19.3-43J. RK24: (3) Redevelopment (p. 24) allows replacement of a building or structure "due to damage" but does not define damage. Is this qualification needed or could the words "due to damage" be deleted ? -Due to damage" deleted. [FD: Section 19.3-44(a)]. ARTICLE IH: SUBMISSION AND REVIEW OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS RK25: B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: # (2) (P. 30) should be reviewed for consistency with current State Code provisions for site plan and subdivision review to ensure compatibility with mandatory length of review periods. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 42 The Stormwater Management Act and Regulations are fairly specific on review periods, and this is what [ based this section on. [FD: Section19.3-28]. ARTICLE IV: MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION RK26: Section 1. Maintenance and Inspection (A) (p. 31) allows delay of recordation of maintenance agreemem to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. From pas~ experience. I think it generally unwise to delay compliance tc the c. o, since the demands placed on staff generally will be the same day as the c. o. is sought. I discussed this with Jack Kelsey. The only condition wh~re the delay hasbeen used in where the applicant does no, fully own the propeny, legally, until the plan is approved (in other words, the approved plan is a condition ofthepurchase agreememJ. I made this section much more specific. See Section 19.3-24(a). [ID: Section t9.3-47Co)(2)]. RK27: Section 2. Compliance and Enforcement (A) Ip. 32~: consider rewording the second paragraph as follows: The notice shall instruct the permutee to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to prc-;c, nt ab. ate erosion, sedimentation, stormwater or water pollution problems. Such notice shall set forth specifically the measures nccacg to czmc '~ntc~ required for compliance with the approved plan. If the permittee fails .... Changes made. IFD: SectiOn 19.3-49(a)]. RK28: Section 2. Compliance and Enforcement (D) (p. 32) provides for appeals "within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of the action or decision by the program authority." Appeals are allowed for plan disapproval or imerpretation Of the Ordinance. Owners of adjacent (abutting ?~ and downstream properties have right of appeal. This provision raises several questions. ---The ordinance does not speak to the effect of appeal. Are "stop work" orders issued if appealed by a downstream owner ? --- How are downstream owners notified of a decision ? --- As written, a downstream owner can only appeal disapproved plans or interpretations, not approved plans~(unless that is intended to be covered under the interpretation language). Also, the ordinance does not require any substantive basis for appeal. Does the State Code provide for appeals by adjoining owners under the soil erosion and sedimentation control legislation ? -- A 30 day appeal period appears excessive. Either the applicant could begin work and appeal near the end of the period or an abutting downstream owner could disrupt the development activity by taking advantage of the full appeal period, I referred these questions to Bob Shaw. His responses are as follows (see also Bobby's comments to me as listed abovej : RSI3:Stop Work Orders: A question was asked if a stop work order was issued if a disapproved Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 43 plan or specification was appealed by a downstream owner. [fa plan is disapproved, then a permit wouM not be issued to begin a land disturbing activity; therefore, a stop worlc order wouM. not be necessary unless the perm#tee started without obtaining an erosion control permit. RS14: Notification: A question was asked about how downstream owners are notified. VA State Code does not require notification of adjacent owners. I have never had an objection to a disapproved plan. Only approved ones. Most objections are why does the County allow the activity at all and persons trying to stop the activity because they do nor approve of it. Generally complaints by the public wouM occur if their property was damaged which is provided for in other sections of the law. RS15: Appeals: Ron Keeler stated that the owners were not allowed any substantive basis for appeal. If the aggrieved owner is not satisfied with the Board of Supervisors decision, the decision may be appealed to the Circuit Court. RS16: Thirty (30) Dc~ Appeal Period: It was stated that the appeal period was excessive, that work couM start while the appeal was being made. In the case ora permittee appealing, the erosion control permit would not be issued. In the event of an owner waiting for their appeal to be heard, it is my opinion that the owner wouM have to obtain injunctive relief to stop the permit .from being issued. This question may have to be answered by the County Attorney's office. Note: Generally appeals would be made by the permittee due to stringent requirements of specificcaions or an interpretation of the law as it wouM apply to an erosion control plan approval. An objection might occur from a downstream owner if we interpreted that an activity was exempt and a plan was nor required. Ron Keeler's questions seem to be related ro submittals to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for preliminary approval and would not apply to an erosion control plan review. The erosion control plan review is no different from the technical plan review by the engineering staff or planning staff after the Planning Commission or Board approval. Erosion control plan revtew is based on standards and specifications. The only thing I may add to these explanations is that new language has been added to Penalties vectian based on changes to the State Code concerning the rights of adjoining or downstream properry owners. See Section 19.3-13(e). [FD: Section 19.3-23(d)]. Edward Scharer. Albemarle County Farm Bureau. Letter dated November 19.1996 -ESl: Albemarle County Farm Bureau has no problem with your simplification of the Water Resources Protection Ordinance as long as the crop land definition is included in the ordinance. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on October 21. 1996 Draft Page 44 Responses to Comments Received on the February.25, 1997 Draft. Comments in normal face. Responses in italics NOTE: Page references in comments are to February 25. 1997 Draft, unless otherwise noted. [Reference to the final draft (November 19, 1997) in brackets following the FD notation]. Don Franco. The Kessler Group, Meeting With David Hirsctunan on 3/5/97 & written comments on draft One of the main issues discussed in this meeting is how the ordinance should be instrumental in removing disincentives (providing incentives?l to develop'within Development Areas as opposed to Rural Areas, which is one of the County's land use objectives. Don felt that the ordinance shouM go further in this regard by impostng additional criteria for Rural Area development. I explained the steps that this ordinance takes in that direction compared to current practices (e.g., at present, there are no water quantity or quality reqmrements tn Rural Areas that aren't in the Water Supply watershed. The proposed ordinance includes requirements). We agreed on the basic concept, but not on all the details *see specific comments below2. Don also felt that maybe this ordinance is premature before the infill committee finishes its work. l explained that the ordinance has been in the works for several years, and that it could be modified based on inpat from the infill study, but that I feel that it is time for it to move forward. Specific comments written on the draft are paraphrased below along with my responses: DF1: What is the stares of the Design Manual? The Design Manual is in drafi form. My plan is to develop this further while the ordinance is going ~hrou~gh its work session/public hearing process, [FD:~ The County now has a contract with HSMM to develop a design manual, a focus group has been formed, and several meetings of the group ha~e been held. The final manual will not be ready by the time the ordinance ts adopted. However. an interim manual will be completed.] DF2: Section 19.3-8(a~ - Technical Criteria for E&S - Agreement in Lieu of a Plan: With regard to a growth management strategy, why give this option (agreement in lieu of a plan) outside of Growth Areas (in other words, why not require a full plan for single family residences in Rural Areas, as is proposed for the Mountain Overlay District). For Growth Areas, get the little (lots) out of the way so we can devote more time to larger construction projects (F.&S time). Use the agreement in lieu of a plan option more in large developments once infrastructure is installed and stabilized - would help reduce term on subdivision bonds. What does the City do? I agree that the ordinance should try ro remove disincentives to Growth Area development, and this has been one of the primary changes from existing programs. However, I don't think that requiring a full E&S plan for Rural Areas and loosening standards in Growth Areas is well advised. It must be kept in mind that the intent of E&S is ultimately to control erosion and sedimentation, and that means employing practices where the main land disturbances are happening. Requiring full permits for single family residential construction in Rural Areas would, I believe, greatly increase bureaucracy and work load without a commensurate reduction in soil loss. Agreements in lieu ora plan for Growth Areas can be used at the discretion of the Erosion Control Officer for larger developments, and I see no problem with using this more if soil erosion can be controlled where mass grading is involved. Basically, agreement in lieu ora Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on February 25, 1997 Draft Page 45 plan is a good tool independent of where it is used, assuming it is used wisely. The City's current E&S ordinance also contains this provision for single-family residences. {FD: Section 19. 3-13J. DF3: Section 19.3-16(gl - General Stormwater Manaeement Regulations: Why doesn't E&S have a similar statement. This is a major issue with E&S. A developer puts a basin in, and, because of the large watershed, the basin is big ~25-year design storm}. Since the basin is already in the stream, the development uses it for permanent stormwater management. The whole time. the basin is at the bottom of the site. so the stream within the development gets blown out. This is a ve~ important issue, l agree with the statement in that the outcome often is not the best one for the stream. I think in the future, the state and localities will have to pay more atteruffon to how E&S and stormwcaer management are coordinated with regard to the siting of facilities. 1 think this can be resolved through design and ordinance interpretation, and this statement gives us some latitude to do this. There is nothing in the E&S ordinance that mandates that basins be at the. bottom of drainage areas, and this issue must be resolved on a site-by-site basis. The new ordinance and associated destgn manual will give us a jumping-off place to work on this topic. [!eD: Section 19.$-36(e)]. DF4: Section 19.3-17(c) - Calculations: Move a lot of this stuff to the Design Manual, On small sites, the hydrograph may not be essential due to simple hydrology. For subsection (3), why not just specify C or CN values. Agreed. Details on calculations will be in the Design Manual. I don't have any problem with specifying C or CN values in the Design Manual based on the assumptions given in this subsection. [FD: Section 19. 3-38(e)1. DF5: Section 19.3-17(d~ - Exemptions: With regard to the exemption for single-family residences [number (3)], why not remove this exemption for Rural Areas? I don't think it is feasible to require detention for single lots in the Rural Areas. There is no real benefit to doing it this way, as detention needs to be designed project-wide (for the Whole subdivisiom. We wouM get back into requzring things like seepage ditches, and nobody likes that type of thing to be required of the homebuyer, or thinks that they are even effective. [FD: Section 19.3-38(0(3)]. DF6: Section 19.3-18(a~ - BMPs: Does the last sentence mean that there should be sheet flow where the drainage does not go to a BMP? That. ostensibly, is what it means. After considering this further, I removed the last sentence because I don't think it will work v. ith curb and gutter or for other urban/suburban applications. The concept can still be employed where feasible, but does not have to mandated in the ordinance. [ID: Section 19.3- 39(a)]. DF7: Section 19.3-18Cm - Water Ouality Calculations: Put a lot of this in the Design Manual, Removed some of this section for inclusion in Design Manual. [FD: Section19.3-39tc)]. DF8: Section 19.3-18(c)(3~ - Exemntions for Single-Family Residence: Again. think about removing exemption in Rural Areas. Here again, we get to the question of whether effective water quality treatment can be provided at the scale Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance comments & Responses on February 25, 1997 Draft Page 46 of the single-family lot. Our accumulated experiences with seepage ditches and attempts at alternatives has led me to change this ordinance so that water quality is addressed project-wide, where effective treatments can be based on an overall design. With regard to the water quality requirement, the Modified Simple Method does have stricter standards in Rural Areas vis-a-vis Development Areas, and this should address some of the concern about incentives/disincentives. [FD: Section 19.3-39(d) (3)]. DF9: Section 19.3-20(a) - Designation of Stream Buffers: Requiring stream buffers is double-dipping -- a development needs BMPs plus stream buffers. If you're not gett'mg credit for the buffer, you will need additional space and money for BMPs. Essentially, this is true. I think we can recogmze that BMPs and stream buffers work in tandem, and don't provide redundant treatment. Often. site runoff is channelized through the buffer, so the buffer is not providing any treatment, although it offers other advantages to the stream, such as stability, habitat, and recreation. The requirement for BMPs comes from the realization that we shouldn't just be straight-piping our runoff into the streams without trying to remove some pollutants first. Given that, ~he Modified Simple Method has variable requtrernenrs for Development Areas, Rural Areas, and Drinking Water Watersheds. With regard to stream buffer requtrements in Development Areas, I did modify this to stick with the existing lO0' buffer (removed the flood plain requirement). [FD: Section19.3-41]. DFI0: Section 19.3-20(b](B - Management of Stream Buffers: The values listed (biological. flood-control. etc.) are not the same as those listed in (a) to designate the buffers. Question about pathways being "surfaced" to control erosion. Changed language to be more consistent. Removed references to "surfacing' pathways. FFD: Section 19.3-41 & 19.3-43(a) & (b)(6)]. DFll: Section 19.3-20(e~(4~(ii~ - Exemption .for Public Utilities & Facilities: What about public facilities built by private entities? In the past. these were interpreted to be public.facilities and were allowed the exemption. I added language here to be more explicit. [FD: Section 19.3-42(b)]. DF12: Section 19.3-20(e)(5) - Exemption for Stormwater and E&S Facilities: There is a value judgemem here that E&S is more important than water quality. Is there a way to strengthen this to allow disturbance of a stream buffer m be a criteria for modifying E&S standards? The issue is the short-term vs. long-term View. This is an issue of interpretation, In the past, the Water Resources Manager, or other pany, has been given the opporranay to propose alternatives or veto facilities being located in the stream buffer. Of course, this needs a case-by-case determination. The language here provides for a water quality override because the issue of having the facility in the buffer must be considered, lT~D: Section 19.3-44(b)]. DF13: Sections 19.3-23 - 19,3-24: Move various sections to the Design Manual. I don't object; however, the State Stormwater Management Act and Regulations are explicit about some of this stuff being adopted by ordinance (review procedures, .fees, etc. i. [FD : Section 19.3-28- 19.3-31, 19.3-34]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on February 25. 1997 Draft Page47 Tom Muncaster. Muncaster Entfi. neering, via emaii. March 20. 1997 TMI: Section 19.3-17(c) - Water Ouantitv Calculations: I got questioned last night at the Design Review Council about the 20 acre limit with regard to quantity. Can you tell me where it came from? The consensus ~s that there shouldn't be an upper limit for the rational method. VDOT recommends not using it above 200 acres. What happens is that it is conservative for larger areas because it does not take into account storage conditions which occur. Therefore, yields a higher peak flow than other methods. Reply by email on April 2, as follows: I replaced the calculations section of the ordinance for water quantity with the following: Pre-development and post-development runoff rates shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority. [FD: Section 19.3-38(e)]. I think it is wise to leave it simple like this in the ordinance, The Design Manual will have to have some more detailed guidance, so we will still have to make some decisions on methods, drainage areas, etc [see Tom Gale comment and response below]. The sentiment th the Engineering Department is that for 'larger' drainages thowever that is defined), it may be best to verify results with more than one method. In any case, if it is in the Design Manual, it can be modified without going through an ordinance amendment, We'll discuss this further in the near future. You had asked where the 20 acre limit for the Rational Method came from. As.far as I can tell, it came from the Dewberry & Davis report, 1 didn't find this same language in the State Stormwater Act or Regulations. According to D&D, the 20 acre limit is.from Fairfax County. [See also reply to Tom Gale below.] Additional comment inot included in email): With regard to the Rational Method yielding "conservative" results (perhaps overestimating peak flow), I wouM like to share the following. Being conservative has different implications for computing a culvert or stream crossing than it does for designing stormwater basins. Empirically, we know that there are some facilities out there that don't seem to be providing much detention -- they are large and have large outlet pipes, and most storm flows go right on through. Maybe this has resulted from using "conservative" calculation method& It really doesn't serve anyone's interests to oversize a basin, especially when valuable urban land is at stake (not a good deal for the landowners. and when the detention function only kicks in during the largest storm events (not a good deal for downstream properties and stream channels). For these reasons, it will be important to verify some peak flow calculations with more than one method, even if that means we get smaller facilities with smaller outlet ptpes. This is the kind of discussion that we must have to create some type of guidance for the Design Manual. Tom Gale. Roudabush. Gale & Assoc.. Letter dated March 28.1997 TGI: The only concem that I feel is worth mentioning in the proposed Water Ordinance is Section 19.3 - 17(C) Calculations. (1). It has been my understanding that the rational method is generally acceptable by VDOT up to two hundred (200) acres. I do not necessarily agree that it should be a stand alone method for.situations up two hundred (200~ acres, but I think it is reasonable m use as a stand alone method beyond twenty (20) acres. For this reason, I feel this type of criteria is better left out of the ordinance. After discussion on what is a reasonable design criteria in terms of runoff methods and acreage, I do not have Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on February 25, 1997 Draft Page 48 a problem with this information being placed in the Design Manual as a design criteria. However. I would hate to see it mandated by the ordinance. l agree with placing calculation guidance in the Design Manual, and this will be done tsee response to Tom Muncaster above). FFD: Section 19.3-38(e)]. John Mlinarcik, Denartment of Conservation & Recreation, Letter dated March 4, 1997 JM(CJl:Section 19.3-3: Is the Albemarle County Department of Engineering to be the administrator for both the city and county programs? No, just the County program. City staff has been provided with a City-specific version of the ordinance for their review. Currently, their stormwater programs are administered by the Zoning Administrator and City Engineering. They make keep these positions in place as the program authority, if they adopt the new ordinance. JM(C)2: Section 19.3-17(2~: You may wish (need) to explain the requirements of the enhanced channel criteria within this section. We would prefer to keep this type of design guidance in the Design Manual or as cleparrmem policy, rather than mandating it in the ordinance. If it's in the ordinance, the ordinance must be amended every time you want to modify or alter the design guidance m some way revert minor). I know that the draft Stormwater Management Regulations (draft date 1/97- Section 2.4) states that a locality can, by ordinance, require enhanced channel erosion criteria or design standards (subsection C). While I agree wholeheartedly with the approach, I don't think that localities should have to adopt these measures by ordinance, because they are design standards that need updating and modifying from time to time. A parallel at the state4evel would be the E&S Handbook, which contains design standards, versus the E&S Act and Regulations. which contain mandates, The local situation should also be like this. FFD: Section 19.3-38td)]. JM(C)3: Section 19.3-18(6~: I will defer comment to Joe Battiata who previously offered the DCR perspective on water quality, 1 will consult with Joe. JM(C)4: Section 19.3-18(C): It was not noted if water quality criteria in projects under one acre was applicable. Exemption for water quantity control for projects less than one acre was noted in ttmt particular section. Projects under 1 acre are not exempted from water quality requirements, but are exempted from water quantity requirements. This is because detention for small sites is best handled at least subregionally (e.g., for a collection of smdil sitesl, while water quality can be addressed on-site through bioretention, vegetated filters, etc. [FD: Section 19.3-00(4~ & 19.3-39(d)]. JM(C)$: Section 193~20(E-5: You may wish to list the "functional" value as being the (Q10) event for water quantity control facilities. While not being as explicit as suggested in this comment. I added some language ro refer back to the "standards ~f the ~rdinance~~ s~ that ~~th water quantity and quulity functi~ns w~uld be c~vered. [FD: Section 19.3-44(b)(4)]. Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance Comments & Responses on February 25, 1997 Draft Page 49 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MI~TES 4-29-97 3 understand that even though their land might not be within an Albemarle County water supply watershed, their actions still impact downstream water supplies. --Finley (Buck Mt. Creek): He noted that though there are some statements (pg. 20 and 21) about a possible Buck Mt. reservoir "it sort of vanishes until page 22." He wondered if this ~s a sufficient explanation about the Buck Mt. Creek basin. Ms. Scala said a major revision to this section had been the de-emphasis of Buck Mt. as an alternative. In the past Buck Mt. has been considered a "definite alternative," but recently it has been less definite. Mr. Finley said that though the Commission is aware of the reasons for this de- emphasis, the public is not. and it should be more clearly explained here. -Huckle (pg. 42): She felt the development of a hydrogeologic testing process should be a top priority. --Tice (Surface Water): Should there be a cross reference to the Mountaintop Protection Plan in relation to the impact of debds flows? Ms. Scala said it could be cross- referenced either under Surface Water or Flood Plains. --Tice: He felt water conservation techniques should be emphasized more strongly because they are a critical component in dealing with water supplies. WORK SESSION - Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance Mr. Hirschman explained the history of the development of the Ordinance and how the new ordinance differs from existing practices. Commission comments and suggestions were as follows: --Huckle (Article 1, General Provisions): She felt Groundwater should have its own "letter" under General Provisions. She suggested: "Protect groundwater from pollution and facilitate recharge of groundwater." --Huckle (Article 1, General Provisions, E): She suggested a change: "Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and their networks for their biological functions, drainage and the natural recharge of groundwater...." --Huckle (pg. 22, re: management of stream buffers and remowng fallen trees): She called attention to a book entitled Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook which shows different types of devices which are placed in streams to enhance their health by providing ripples and pools. She suggested it might be helpful to make this handbook available to the public. --Huckle (pg. 23, no. 3, re: removal of trees): She was afraid too much emphasis on trees "6 inches in diameter" might leave the average homeowner confused. She suggested adding language similar to the following: "In order to brunt the force of raindrops and titus prevent erosion that there should be an understory consisting of medium height bushes and groundcover which should not be cleared and should be added if missing." (Mr. HirsChman pointed out those three layers are addressed on pg. 22, B, 1.) --Ms. Huckle commended staff for their work in the development of this ordinance. --Huckle: She asked for an explanation of the difference between the exemptions for silvaculture--in one place BMP's are required and in another place (pg. 19) it is exempt. Mr. Hirschman explained: "Page 19 is exemption only for water quantity stormwater detention. The other exemption is related to stream buffers." The Virginia Department of Forestry has a Page 50 /'7 4-29-97 ,~ program of BMP's for silvaculture and BMP's are mandatory for silvaculture operations within resource protection areas and for property which is in the land use assessment program. Public comment was invited. Mr. Don Fmnco (an engineer) expressed the following concerns: --"There are a lot of procedural things, as well as design techniques and methodologies that are in an ordinance that belong in a design manual. So those should be pulled out of there, mainly because of flexibility. There is more flexibility in a design manual than in an ordinance, i.e. it is more of a living document and is easier to amend. Getting a design manual out to the public is important." --There should be included a "recognition of what the goals are." "Erosion control may have different goals than water quality goals .... Erosion control drives more of what I do than anything else in terms of design" --It Js presently easier to develop in rural areas than in growth areas. This Ordinance has made the "gap smaller," but does not close the gap. --Referring to the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, "Should staffing requirements be your yardstick for saying we're going to write off the rest of the rural areas?" Mr. Franco said he felt the development community had been fairly represented throughout the process of the development of this ordinance. There was discussion about the anticipated time line for the completion of the Ordinance and the scheduling of the public hearing. Mr. Hirschman said tl~ere are a few "housekeeping" items yet to be completed. Aisc, the County Attorney's office has yet to review this most recent draft. Mr. Kamptner noted that the Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance will cause the need for so_me amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to erosion and sediment control and stormwater control. He envisioned the Ordinance will be ready to come back to the CommiSsion in its final form in about two months. Mr. Cilimberg questioned the need for the Ordinance to come back to the Commission after the County Attorney's office has completed its final review. It was finally determined that the Commission was in "general agreement" that the document could proceed to the Board if the staff determines that there is no need for it come back to the Commission. Mr. Dotson hoped-if there is another Commission work session on the Ordinance-the staff report will respond to some of Mr. Franco's comments about "unintended consequences." There being no further business, the meeting [adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ~7. V~y~e Page 51 10-7-97 I OCTOBER 7, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Jack Ketsey, Chief of Engineenng; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Dotson and Nitchmann. A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the September 16th meeting were approved (4:0:1) as amended. Ms. Huckle abstained from the vote because she was not present at the September 16th meeting. Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken at the October 1st Board of Supervisors meeting. WORK SESSION - Water Resources Ordinance - Final CommissIon review. Mr. Hirschman led the discussion. He and Mr. Kamptner explained briefly changes made in the proposed ordinance since the last work session, with the most significant change being in the organization of the document, i.e. lengthy sections were broken apart to create "stand alone sections that deal with specific issues germane to a more relevant issue." It is hoped this reorganization will make the document easier to use by both staff and the public. Two issues which arestill' outstanding are (1) Fees; and (2) the Mountain Overlay Ordinance. (The Ordinance proposes that land disturbing activity in a Mountain Overlay District, which disturbs less than 10,000 square feet, can be accomplished with an Erosion Control Agreement with appropriate documentation attached. Activity greater than 10,000 square feet will require a full Erosion Control Plan. This topic was discussed at length later in the meeting.) Questions raised by the Commission were as follows: --Page 20, Sec, 19.3-20 (b) - Ms. Huckle asked if staff envisions more personnel in order to be able to perform periodic inspections as described. ANSV'CER: The language is taken directly from the Code of Virginia. The present County staff could not possibly comply with the language. The Board recently asked that any amendments dealing with development issues address three issues, (1) the implications for staffing in the implementation of the ordinance; (2) the implications for Page 52 10-7-97 2 review time; and (3) the implicatiOns as related to housing affordability. Those three items will be addressed in the report which goes to the Board --Mr. Finley asked how the 45day time frame for Erosion Plan approval differs from the present practice. ANSWER: The present time is 30 days and it is the intention of staff to continue to follow that 30-day turnaround time. However, the State Code is explicit ona 45 day review period and it is included in this ordinance to be consistent with the State Code. --Mr. Finley asked about the definition of agricultural road. "If the road leading to a residence is more than 10,000:square feet, is it exempt from the requirement?" ANSWER: The State Attorney General's office has issued a ruling that agricultural roads are exempt'from erosion control. The intent here is to try to prevent the possibility of someone having an approved plat who may start their road construct/ton without an erosion control permit under the auspices of it being an agricultural or forestal road. It is uncertain, at this point, whether this approach is legal. Staff is awaiting a copy of theAttorney General's "letter opinion¢' on this issue and Will review it prior to the final draft of this Ordinance. If it is determined the definition of agricultural road. as proposed here, must be changed, then "agricultural road, as defined by State Code. is exempt from erosion" regulations. Even if the road is also the access for a residence, if it's primary use is for agriculture, it would still be exempt. Mr. Tice pointed out the Ordinance says an agricultural road is exempt exceot where certain portions of the road cross section exceeds certain dimensions, (i.e. the entire disturbed area cross section for the road exceeds 50 feet, or vertical height of the fill is higher than I'0 feet). --Mr. Finley asked about the statement "cutting of forests is not exempt unless artificially or naturaltyreforested." ANSWER: Mr. Tice said this is to make a distinction between lands that are retained in forest use vs. lands which are converted to another land use after the timber is harvested (which would require an Erosion Plan). Mr. Hirschman added: "This is a way to say if the land use changes, it is subject to erosion control." --Page 8 - Mr. Finley asked for clarification of the exemption for farm structures, ANSWER: This language is taken directly from the Code of Virginia. Presently farm structures must get a building permit. An agreement, similar to. that used for residential development, is used to address land disturbance activity less than 10,000 square feet. A building permit is required for ~ farm structures, but the structures are exempt from the Building Code. The permit is for zoning review of setbacks, etc. In this Ordinance, if the structure disturbs more than 10,000 square feet, an erosion control permit will be required. -M r. Tice asked if this Ordinance implements all the authority granted tc localities in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, or have things been "left out or modified?" He asked specifically about the 10,000 square feet limit, which the CBPA allows to be 2,500 square feet. ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner: "The E&S enabling legislation allows us to impose more stringent substantive requirements. We ara limited in what we can do procedurally.... W~th the CBPA, the County has identified Resource Protection Areas, but it has not taken the step to establish Resource ~.~ ¢ Page 53 10-7-97 3 Management Areas." Mr. Hirschman talked about the Stormwater Management Act. He said this Ordinance addresses the issue of stormwater management in Resource Protection Areas. There are other things which localities are authorized to do in the Act which the County does not do, e.g. mandatory pumping of septic tanks every five years, and the requirement for site plans for disturbance less than 2,500 square feet. Those items were not addressed in this Ordinance beceuse the mand~e from the Board was "to consolidate and update what we already had, with the exception of doing more on water quality." Mr. Kamptner added that an Ordinance which would implement all the authority granted under the CBPA would be beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Tice said he hopes, "if there is good reason to consider reducing the square footage from 10,000 to 2,500 and doing some of the other things," it won't be another 15-20 years before those things can be considered. Mr. Kamptner said there is a process which must be followed in the designation of Resource Management Areas. However, changing the 10,000 to 2,500 could possibly be done through the enabling authority of the E & S Act and the Stormwater Management Law. Mr. Finley said there should be a lot of community involvement before such a change is oo_nsidemd. Mr. Tice said "the majority of the State's population now works, very effectively, under an Ordinance'with that level of limitation." He said making that change might eliminate a "dual" approach through the Mountain Overlay District, i.e. going to 2,500 square feet (for erosion control), county-wide, might eliminate the nee0 for a second level for the Mountain Overlay District. He said he is concerned about the cumulative impa~ of the development activity that currently is exempt from the Ordinance because of the 10,000 square foot limit. Ms. Huckle said she is concerned, even with the way the Ordinance is proposed here, that there will be insufficient staff to ensure that the Ordinance is followed, Mr. Loewenstein wondered how long it would take to receive public input and also how long before there could be "realistic input" about the personnel situation: Mr. Tice said he does not want to hold up the progression of this Ordinance, but he feels such a change deserves consideration. Mr. Finley pointed out that such a change will mean more staff, more fees, and more taxes, and those things must also be-considered. Mr. Kelsey said a 2,500 square foot limit could triple the staff load. Staff agreed to contact other counties tosee how the 2,500 square feet is working. Such a change could be handled With an amendment later. --Mr. Tice asked if this Ordinance in any way effects the'Scenic River Designation for the Mormon's River. ANSWER: No, because it will stay in the Zoning Ordinance as an overlay. --Mr. Tice pointed out that the current Ordinance requires a Water Quality Impact Assessment, but this one does not. What replaces that requirement? ANSWER: An assessment is still required, but this Ordinance changes the name to a Mitigation Plan --Mr. Tice asked if isolated wetlands are given any protection in this proposed Ordinance. ANSWER: Not beyond federal standards--just wetlands that are associated with stream buffers. Page 54 10-7-97 4 --Mr. Tice asked if th.e, "requirement that post-development phosphorous loads not exceed pre-development applies in all four areas. ANSWER: It does although the calculation method uses different values, depending on the area. --Mr. Tice noted that the CBPA requires a 100 foot stream buffer on agricultural lands, which can be reduced to 25 feet i_f the farm has a Conservation'Plan. This Ordinance allows a 25 feet stream buffer for all agricultural lands, but requires that all farms must have a Conservation Plan. He asked'if his understanding was-correct. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Tice's understanding of the proposed language. Mr. Hirschman added that the Soil & Water Conservation Distdct has corn pleted ConServation Plans for all tracts of cropland adjacent to perennial streams. --Mr. Tice asked if the County Code addresses "illicit discharges and illegal disposal." ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner did not know the answer to the question. He said this Ordinance does not address those issueS. Mr. Keeler said there are prohibitions of the storage of certain types of materials within the floodplain and there are provisions in the Site Plan Ordinance for the minimization of downstream pollution, which speaks directly to poisons, etc. He said he does not think the CoUnty Code has any provisions, and even if it did, he questioned Who would enforce such provisions. The County Code does deal with landfills. Mr. Kelsey added that a Certified Engineer's Report for industrial properties covers the storage Of hazardous materials. ' -:-Page 6- Mr. Tice asked about the definit!,o.n of contigUOus non-tidal wetlands and the definition of natural stream. He asked: Do we want to eXClude non-tidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to an altered stream channel?" ANSWER: Natural stream does not have any bearing on the requirement for a stream buffer. Mr. Hirschman suggested that the definition could be amended to say "stream channel" rather than "natural stream channel." He pointed out that the definition of stream is a natura/stream or human-made waterway." --Page 10 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition ofrunofL He pointed out that runoff can include things other than just "precipitation," such as water from car washing and lawn irrigation. Ms. Huckle Suggested the word "water" be substituted for "precipitation." ANSWER: Staff noted that a detention basin would not be sized based on water runoff from car washing activity. Staff said they would look at this definition further. --Page 24 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of development areas and areas of infill and redevelopment. He asked if the definition of development areas is clear in the Land Use Section of the Comp Plan, as referred to here, and whether there is a map which shows thrill and redevelopment areas. ANSWER: Development areas boundaries are described in the Comp Plan. There is presently no map, but "this is holding a place if such a thing eve,r happens." Mr. Tice said the proposed wording here seems to imply that this condition has to be met in Order for the definition to apply. Mr. Kampther explained: ~'Until those areas are designated, then it would be subject to the development areas." --Page 31 Sec. 19.3-36 (c) and (d) - Mr. Tice asked: "How much:does that take into account upstream contributing uses?" ANSWER: It will take into Page 55 10-7-97 5 consIderation the drainage area. When it refers to the ultimate land development, it is the project. Both Mr~ Hirschman and Mr. Kelsey agreed that this language needs to be reviewed and clarified so as to take into account plans that have already been approved, but not built. --Mr. Finley asked if any consideration is given to situations where the runoff from a development may be very small, but a VDOT drainage easement across the proper[y, which drains a large upstream area, may be quite significant. ANSWER: Mr. Kelsey said all drainage is considered which is coming through a property. (Note: Because he did not come to the microphone, most of his response was inaudible.) --Page 33, paragraph (f), dealing.with Peak Rate and Velocity of RunOff - Mr. Tice asked why (5) and (6) are exempt. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman said: "It can be discretionary. If runoff from a development is small compared with what is coming down the channel, in either a 2-year or a 10-year storm, detention could possibly have a negative impact of timing the release from a detention facility to coincide with the peak running down. That is not to say that water quality is exempt." (5) and (6) would not be exempt from BMP's. -Page 28 (c) - Ms. Huckle asked how performance bonds are handled, particularly isthere a renewal provision with adjustments made for inflation. ANSWER: The bond will be requiredat the time the construction begins and once the facility is completed the bond is released. On-going maintenance would be dealt with through a maintenance agreement. Mr. Kelsey said inspections are made at the time the bonds are renewed (usually every 6 months or ~12 months) to see if the bond will still cover the work and adjustments can be made to the bond at that time. The Ordinance allows for inflation to be factored in with the bond price. Staff continues to work on improvements to the bonding process. --Page 10 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of water dependent facilities. He questioned the part of the definition related to "water oriented recreation areas." He wanted tobe sure there isn't a loophole which would allow someone to eliminate or reduce a stream buffer, regardless of the type of project, just by stating that they are creating a "water oriented recreation area." ANSWER: Staff agreed this definition needs to be clarified and a connection needs to be made between the first and second sentence. --Page 35, Sec. 19.3.41(b) - Mr. Finley said it is unclear whether intermittent streams in Water Supply Protection Areas are, or are not, considered streams. He also asked what "other rural land" in the phrase "if the land development is located in other rural land," means. ANSWER: The Ordinance puts land in three categories, a development area, a water supply protection area, or other rural land. Mr. Finley asked if a buffer would be required on a stream, in a water supply protection area, which flows only a month or month and a half a year. ANSWER: The current. Runoff Control Ordinance has a building and septic setback on all tributary streams in the reservoir watershed. Tributary means intermittent or perennial. A field visit is performed to determine whether a stream is intermittent or perennial. A characteristic looked for is whether it has a defined stream channel with defined banks. Page 56 10-7-97 6 --Related to Mr. Finley's question about stream buffers, Mr. Tice pointed out there is a provision in the proposed Ordinance (page 40) which allows a waiver if the program authority determines that the stream buffer would preclude reasonable access or prohibit the practical construction and installation of septic systems, etc. Mr. Tice asked if there is language in this Ordinance, or the Zoning Ordinance, which would prohibit or minimize the creation of lots that would necessitate encroachment?" ANSWER: (Paragraph c, page 40) For the develOpment of septic systems: the lot must have been recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter. Mr. Tice asked about encroachment for other reasons, such as access. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman said the access issue is addressed through the definition of "necessary infrastructure", which does not include a driveway or a read. "You can only encroach on a buffer for stormwater conveyance channels and other necessa~ infrastructure, and 'necessary infrastructure' is defined." Ms. Huckle asked how if it is possible for a lot to be createct which would not meet the requirements. ANSWER: Mr. Kelsey said: "1 don't see how that is possible because at the preliminary plat stage we field identify intermittent streams and where the buffers will be." Ms. Huckle said it seems that (B)(2), page 40, says if "a lot isn't legal to start with, you can make some adjustments and build on it." ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner explained: "What (B)(2) does is allow an applicant to get a modification of the 50 foot buffer if the lot is created after the date of this Ordinance, only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure. That is the only type of development for which a modification can be granted." Mr. Hirschman added: "There may be an instance where a main subdivision road would have to cross an intermittent stream. That-might be considered reasonable access, but the individual lots and the driveways and their improvements couldn't be laid out in such a way that would cause an encroachment." Public comment was invited. Mr. Don Franco addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --The Blue Ridge Homebuilders ~vould support an assessment covering review time, staffing, and affordable housing. --Changing the limit to 2,500 square feet would triple the number of Erosion Control Plans Which would need review. 2,500 square feet is "nothing," so almost all building permits would trigger that requirement. Before making that change, careful consideration must be given to how it would be enacted and staffed. --Consideration should be given to changing the bonding process, possibly tieing them to a five-year plan. --Overall, this proposed Ordinance iS a step forward and helps close the gap between development in the rural areas and development in the growth areas. Commissioners commended staff for their work on this ordinance. Mr. Tice said he feels this Will be a much more effective 0ocument than the three or four it replaces, and it is easier to understand and to use. Other Commissioners agreed. Page 57 10-7-97 7 It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to forward the Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Formal action was required at this time. WORK SESSION ~ Si.qn Ordinance Amendments Ms. McCulley presented the staff report. She explained these amendments are to refine those sections of the Ordinance which have not been working well, and thus reduce the number of recurring variances and confusion over interpretation. She said the most significant changes, which address the most variances, are those related to (1) the height of wall signs in commercial districts; and (2) the size of wall signs in planned unit developments. These amendments would increase the size of wall signs in planned u~qit developments for commercial areas from 32 sq. ft. to 1 sq. ft per 1 linear foot of building frontage, up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. (equivalent to what is allowed in commercial office or commercial retail). Another change is related to political signs and is based on the determination that the current regulation "is not treating that form of political expression in the same way we treat other forms of expression." (Example: Real estate and general business signs can be 32 square feet.) Changes are proposed to electric message signs which would disallow them in residential or rural zoned property. ' Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the changes which would allow a political sign to be 32 square feet and also removes the restrictions related to how far in advance of an election the signs can be erected. Ms. McCulley said this regulation has been almost totally ignored, but staff can continue to try to work with the 30 day limit if that is determined to be legal. She said she needs to discuss further with the County Attorney's office the question of freedom of political expression and whether or not the number of signs, size of signs and day limitations are legal. It was noted that many political signs are most often placed in the VDOT right~of-way, and the County has no control over those signs, unless they obstruct an intersection or sight distance. Mr. Grady, Assistant Zoning Administrator, described some of the Department's "success stories," i.e. improvements to signs which have come about as a result of this Ordinance. In response to Mr. Finley's question about signs which are exempted from the requirement for a sign permit, Mr. Grady listed those which are exempt, e.g. a name sign on a residence, a residential address sign, a temporary directional sign, a Private Page58 Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance OTHER DOCUMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE CONSOLIDATED ORDINANCE FOCUS GROUP: April 15. 1996: Jack Kelsey Chief of Engineering Albemarle County Engineering 401 Mcl_nfire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 296-5861 Michael R. Matthews, Jr. Brinkman MDC Queen Charlotte Square 210 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 293-8004 (w) Alyson Sappingmn District Manager Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 695 Berkmar Court, Suite 2 Charlottesville. VA 22901-1406 975-0224 Babette Thorpe Piedmont Enviromental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville. VA 22903 977-2033 Jacquelyn Huckle Planning Commission Route 1, Box 255 Earlysville, VA 22936 973-6414 Tom Muncaster 1740 Lambs Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 978-7879 John Davis Manager of Engineering & Design 575 Alderman Road Charlottesville. VA 22903 982-0112 FAX:982-2838 John Mlinarsik Division of Soil & Water Conservation Route 4, Box 99J Staunton, VA 22401 (703)332-9991 Gary Rice Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive P.O. Box 7546 Charlottesville, VA 22906 972-6259 Ron Higgins C'ville Community Development P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville. VA 22902 971-3182 Mary Joy Scala County of Albemarle Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 296-5823 Steve Runkle The Kessler Group Post Office Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 979-9500 David Vanaman City Engineer P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 971-3345 Page 59 Page 60 NM~D POLICY NA~IONALMAPPINO D~V~S~ON SUBJECT= BACKGROUND= POLICY= IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES: NMD POLICY ~ollcy Number 92-PO-~ NMD POLICY Data Issusd September 15, 1992 Requests for Stream Reclassification The National Mapping Division (NMD) has received several letters recently requesting reclassification of streams from both perennial and intermittent status. An increasing number of local and State Jurisdictions are developing and adopting legislation, such as the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, containing zoning and remidential/c~mercial development criteria relying on the stream classification shown on NHD map products. Current technical instructions call for a stream to be classified as perennial if it contains water throughout the year, except for infrequent and extended periods of severe drought. All other streams are classified as intermittent. In addition, if there ia ~question aa to whether a st=sam is perennial, it ia shown as intermittent. Stream classification is done in th~ field during a limited time period and relies on observations and information obtained ~rom local residentll and, thus, is a subjective process. No scientific measurements a::e made to determine the classification. The U.S. ~eolcgical Survey (USGS) has procedures in place for receiving and processing comments and suggested changes to its cartographic products. The process includes acknowledging receipt of the request and associated materials and documentation, and forwarding all materials to the production center responsible for maintenance of the map-or product in question. If ~oseible, the documentation should include supporting information from knowledgeable ~3ources, e.g., local hydrologista, county agents, soil conserve:ion technicians, surveyors, foresters, field engineers, or long-term knowledgeable residents. These materials are placed in a correctio~ file corresponding to the map in queetion~ and ere considered when the map is next revised through replacement ma~]ping or standard update procedures. The USGS/NHD will continue to follow the procedures currently in place. No effort will be made to field check each change request or to accept user-supplied documentation as authorization for the change in claes~ification. Provide this policy =o appropriate mapping center personnel, i.e.; field, coordination/requirements, state liaison, program managers, and others most likely to receive requests for changes to NMD products. NMD POLICY NMD POLICY ~IEi~OLICY COUNTY OF ALBF_.MAR! ~ Department of Engineering & Public Worl~ 401 Mdntire Road. Room 211 CharloUes~lle, Vh~inia 22902..,4596 (804) 296-5861 January 16, 1997 Mr. Shep Moon 'Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department 805 East Broad Street, Suite 701 Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Draft Water Resources Ordinance for Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Dear Sbep: Thank you for discussing our draft ordinance on the phone with me the other day. Our aim with this effort is to consolidate four separate water resources programs into one comprehensive document. The 10/21/96 draft has been reviewed by the County Attorney, and I will be modifying the ordinance accordingly. However, I would like to get CBL.adYs interpretation on a m~mber of items before I complete the next draft. My questions to you and your depariment are as follows: 1. Variability of Stream Buffers Within a Jurisdiction; The ordinance divides our region (City, County, University) into four "water resources areas": (1) infill & redevelopment, (2) (new) development areas, (3) water suppty watersheds, and (4) other rural land. Stormwater quantity, quality, and stream buffer requirements vary across these areas. The purpose of this variability is to make the stormwater ordinance consistent with certain land use objectives (e.g., promoting inffll, protecting drinking water supplies, etc.). With regard to stream buffers, drinking water watersheds would have buffers for both in~rmittent and perennial streams, while for infill and development areas, buffers would follow only "locally-imporumt streams,' as designated by the Planning Commission (see page 20 of the draft ordinance for the stream buffer requirements). Question for CBLAD: The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act provides for buffers along perennial Streams under RPA provisions, although intermittent streams may be included as RPAs or RMAs. Can one jurisdiction have a "sliding' buffer program with variable requirements for distinct geographic areas within the jurisdiction? Please note that, at present, the proposed ordinance would be a stand-alone document (not a component of the Zoning Ordinance), although an issue has been raised by rbe County Attorney (see item #4 in memo from Larry Davis/Greg Kampmer to David Hirschman). Page 62 FAX (804) 972-4035 Mr. Shep Moon Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department January 16, 1997 Page Two Please also note that both wa~er supply watersheds and intermittent streams are addressed on page I]I-39 of the Local Assistance Manual. Exemption for VDOT Activities: Page 24 of the ordinance contains a section on exemptions from buffer requirements for "public utilities and facilities." The statement is made that "activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation and their appurtenant structures in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law" are exempt. This language mirrors language in our current Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. The language has always confused me as to whether all VDOT activities are exempt or just'those that are for E&S purposes. The question has also been raised as to what extent X/DOT can be made to comply with County stream buffer requirements. Questions for CBLAD: Is the intent of the Bay Act language to exempt all VDOT activities or only those that are for E&S practices? Can a local ordinance remove or modify the VDOT exemption so that VDOT activities must demous~ate compliance with a local buffer requirement.* A~icultural Buffer Rea_uirements: Our current Water Resources Protection Areas ordinance follows primarily the Bay Act language with regard to agricultural buffers. This allows for reductions to 50 feet and 25 feet with BMPs and an approved soil and water plan, respectively. The Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) has diligently prepared and approved plans for agricultural land along perennial streams in the County. However, .practical experience has led us to believe that the ordinance, as currently written, is nearly unenforceable, The main reason for this is that the enforcing agent is charged with ensuring that the soil and water plan is actually implemented. As we all know, agricultural land use can be very dynamic, and the elements of a soil and water plan, such as fertilizer and pesticide applications, are difficult to monitor and enforce. The upshot is that 25 feet becomes the de.facto buffer on crop land, the TJSWCD must process a lot of paperwork that may. or may not have a conservation benefit, and the program becomes complaint-driven (especially on pasture land. which constitutes most of the agricultural land in Albemarle County). We are also grappling with how this program will mesh with the new provisions of the Agricultural Stewardship Act. which are designed to deal with complaints. Page 63 Mr. Shep Moon Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Depm'tment January 16, 1997 Page Three As a result of concerns discussed above, we have taken the opportunity of the new ordinance to simplify the agricultural buffer requirement (see page 22 of the draft Ordinance). Question for CBLAD: Under the enabling authority of the Bay Act, can we simplify the agricultural buffer requirements, as written on page 22 of the draft ordinance? For your information, I have enclosed the iollowing: (1) a copy of the 10/21/96 draft ordinance, (2) a copy of the County Attorney's comments on the ordinance, and (3) a copy of comments received from the Piedmont Environmental Council that address a number of the topics raised in this letter. I have highlighted pertinent sections in each of these documents. Thank you for your assistance with this. The ordinance has been a lengthy, but interesting, process. Hopefully, our experience will provide guidance to other localities in Virginia looking to- undertake similar efforts. If possible, I would like to receive your depaximent's response by February 21. Thanks again. cerely, David $. Hirschman Water Resources Manager DJH/cth Enclosures Copy: Jack Kelsey, Engineering & Public Works Greg Kamptner, County Attorney's Office Beck,, Norton Dunlop Secretary of Na ural Res urc~.~, COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT 805 East Broad Street. Suite 701 Richpaond. Virginia 23219 Fax ~804t 225-3447 Mmhael D. Clowe- Executive Director 8041 225-3440 1-800-243-7229 Votce, TDD February ll, 1997 Mr. David J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager Depmhnent of Engineenng & Public Works County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear David: This is in response to your questions concerning ~he proposed Water Resources Ordinance for Charlottesvitle/Albemarle/UVA. Our recommendations for each of your questions are as follows: 1. Variabilitw of Stream Buffer within a Jurisdiction. Section 10.1-2110 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and §. 1.1 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservauon Area Designation and Management Regulations provide enabling authority for localities outside of Tidewater to adopt a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area program as described in the Regulations. To implement their local Bay Act programs, some Tidewater localities have opted to adopt a "stand-alone" ordinance separate from existing land management ordinances such as zoning. While it does not appear to be prohibited by the Act, there has never been a formal legal interpretation of the ability of localities outside of Tidewater to adopt portions or variations of the Bay Act program requirements into a stand-alone ordinance. However, Virginia Code § 15.1 - 489 (Purpose ofzuning ordinances) clearly enables localities to provide for the preservation of "lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment" as well as "include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water", Given this clear authority, it would seem more prudent to include stream buffer provisions in zorung rather than the proposed stand-alone Water Resources Ordinance. Another option would be to reference the water ordinance in zoning, thus providing a legal link to clearer enabling authority. Page 65 2. Exemption for VDOT Activities. Section 4.5.B.1 of the Regulations contains language exempting public roads from Bay Act requirements. The intent of the Regulations was to exempt all VDOT activities because these activities are regulated separately through that agency. 3. Agricultural Buffer Reouirements. Again, because the proposed change would make the ordinance different from the requirements of the Bay Act and Regulations, it may be more appropriate to include (or at least reference) the Agricultural Buffer requirements in the zoning ordinance(s). Although it may be difficult to comprehensively euforee agricultural plans, these plans have proven to have significant educational value and are often implemented by farmers because of the cost savings they provide. Please note also that the Regulations are currently under revision and that the agricultural provisions could potentially change. For more information on the Regulatory revision process, please contact Scott Crafton, the Department's Chief of Environmental Engineering, at 1-800-243-7229. [ hope this iuformation adequately addresses your questions. IftheDepartment canbe of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Shepard Moon Principal Planner c: Shawn Smith, CBLAD Page 66 COUNTY OF Ai ~b~ Department of Engineering & Public Works 401 Mcln~ire Road. Room 211 Charlottesville. U'h'~jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5861 February 26. 1997 RE: Draft of Proposed Comprehensiv~ Water Ordinance Available Dear Developer, Consultant, or Interested P~trty: As you may be aware, the Engineering and Public Works Department has been working for some time on consolidating and updafmg all of the County's water-related ordinances (Erosion Control, Runoff Control, StormwaterDetendon. and Water Resource Protection Areas~. The objectives of this effort are to eliminate confusion, redundancy, and inconsistencies between current programs, streamline the review process, and update technical criteria and calculation methods for stormwater and water quality protection. The proposed ordinance is also intended as a regional stonnwater effort, and the City and University will also be considering the adoption of the technical standards outlined in the ordinance. A draft of the proposed "Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance" is available for review prior to any formal work sessions or public hearings that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be holding. We are seeking to have comments from interested pan'les by March 28, 1997 We would be glad to send the draft ordinance to anyone interested in reviewing k and providing comments. If you are interested, please call the Engineering and Public Works Department at 296-5861 and ask to receive the February 25. 1997 draft of the water ordinance. In the meanfmae, please contact me if you have any questions. David J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager DJH/ybv Page 67 FAX {8041 972-4035 COUNTY OF A~RF_~u~RLE Department of Engineering & Public Works 401 McInfire Road. Room 211 Charlottes~le, Virginia 2~902-4596 (804) 296-5861 February 28, 1997 Mr. David Vanaman. P.E. City Engineer Public Works Deparunent Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville. VA 22902 Mr. Ron Higgins Department of Community Developmem Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Draft Water Ordinance - City Version Dear David and Rom Please fred attached the next' version of the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance. This draft, dated February 28, has been modified to be specific to the City. It also reflects comments from the County Attorney's Office on the October 21, 1996 draft (comments attached). A similar draft, specific to the County, is currently being circulated for review by interested parties (e.g., the focus group). I would like to highlight several items that are pertinent to the City's version of this document: We have had some discussion about stream buffers, but have not resolved if and how these should apply in the City. As you will see in Section 19, I have written th/s draft so that buffers would apply m the Rivanna River, Moores Creek. and Meadow Creek. I paralleled language from the County's version: 100 foot buffers with permitted encroachments, with mitigation, up to 50 feet. I think at this point, City staff should decide if stream buffers are appropriate, and if they are, what width would be feasible given the City's topography and land use patterns. A related issue that came up with the County's version is if stream buffer provisions should be linked with the appropriate zoning ordinance. Some linkage is suggested by the enabling authority (Chesapeake Bay Act) and by the practice in most communities that have a stream buffer program (see item #4 in the County Attorney's memo and the attached correspondence with the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Depatauent). The other technical items in the ordinance, erosion control and water quantity and quality protection, are clearly enabled in stand-alone fashion by the Virginia Code (see "Authority" section on page 1). Page 68 FAX (804) 972-4035 Mr. David Vanaman. P.E. Mr. Ron Higgins February 28. I997 Page Two The "Modified Simple Method" is attached to the back of the draft ordinance, even though this will end up in the design manual rather than in the ordinance proper. I have made a note on the method that City projects should follow calculation procedures for "Areas of lnfill & Redevelopmem'. This is in accordance with previous discussions we have had on this topic. There are a couple of spots in the draft ordinance where I have put comments and questions in brackets (italics and bald). These are details that need to be resolved before the next draft. I have also included a matrix that summarizes how the proposed program would differ from current practices. I am available to help in any way I can to facilitate the review and editing of this document. Please let me know if you have any questions about the attached documents. Sincerely, David J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager DJH/ss Attachmems Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering Page 69 COURTY OF ~{ REMAR! ,E Department of Engineering & Public Works 401 McInt/re Road. Room 211 ChafloO. esville, V'n~jinia 22902-4596 March 3, 1997 Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Post Office Box 18 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0018 Re: Proposed Comprehensive Water Ordinance Dear Art: I have been working for some time on a new ordimmce that will consolidate and update all of the County's water,related programs, including reservoir protection. The objectives of this effort are to eliminate confusion, redundancy, and inconsistencies between current programs, streamline the review process, and ~4~tte teChllical criteria and calculation methods for stormwater and water quality protection. The proposed ordinance is also intended as a regional effort, and the City and University will also be considering the adoption of the technical standards outlined in the ordinance. A "focus group" of interested parties was assembled to work with me on this task. I have enclosed the February 25, 1997, draft of the ordinance for RWSA review. I am seeking to have comments by March 28 so I can incorporate comments into a draft that will go through a formal work session/public hearing process with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. I would like to l~ghlight several changes to the reservoir protection program that RWSA may be interested in. At present, the reservoir watershed is Covered by the Runoff Control Ordinance. The chief functions of this ordinance are to require stream setbacks and runoff permits for. certain development projects. The new ordinance would change certain aspects of implementation as follows: ~lllagl~,~dlt~,~ The Runoff Control Ordinance provides for stream ~ (structures and septic systems must be 100 feet from streamn), and the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance (adopted by the County in 1991) provides for stream buffers (vegetation is preserved in addition to a setback). The overlap and distinction between setbacks and buffers has. been confusing to those regulated by the ordinances and those administering thenl. The proposed ordinance converts all stream setbacks in reservoir watersheds into buffers. The advantage is that streamside vegetation will be preserved along intermittent streams, where previously there was no requirement to protect this vegetation. Page 70 FAX (804~ 972-4035 Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority March 3, 1997 Page Two Water duality Requirements: 'The Runoff Control Ordinance requires a runoff permit for all developments that create impervious cover greater than 5 %. The permit must demonstrate that post-development runoff quantity and quality are similar to pre- development. Historically, many of the developments in the reservoir watershed have been Iow-density, and result in impervious coverage below 5%. Because these have been below the 5 % trigger, they were exempt from any water quality requirement. The proposed ordinance does not have the 5 % trigger for water quality, so that future development will be required to achieve water quality goals commensurate with impacts (based on the calculation procedure 6utlined below). Calculation Proeedllr~s: The current Runoff Control permit process stipulates use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), which was developed to estimate soil losses from agricultural land. At the fmae the Runoff COntrol Ordinance was adopted, there was not a lot of research or calculation methods available for urban/suburban runoff. However, recent interest in and research on this issue has resulted in some calculation methods which more accurately reflect the developed condition. The problem with USLE, since it is based on agriculture, is that it can easily be manipulated so that the water quality requirement goes down as a development adds more pavement. The new ordinance proposes use of the 'Modified Simple Method", which relates water quality closely with the creation of new impervious surfaces. Formal Waiver Process: The Runoff Control Ord'mance has no waiver proviston. In fact, not even the Board of Supervisors can .grant any deviation or waiver from the ordinance. There is a positive side to this from the standpoint of reservoir protection in that bureaucrats cannot incrementally compromise the program by granting unwarranted waivers. However, over the years we have continually nm into implementation problems when confronted with real-world situations, even when water quality stands to be improved by allowing some flexibility (for instance, by ~equiring some type of water quality treatment in exchange for a minor encroachment into a stream setback). The proposed ordinance does have a formal process whereby some stream buffer encroachments are allowed with miflgation. The ordinance is clear on condifious that must be met, and the Board of Supervisors is the body specified to grant waivers (so that they become a lastqtiteh effort rather than everyday practice). P~e71 Mr. Arthur D. Petrirfi, Executive Director Rivarma Water & Sewer Authority March 3, 1997 Page Three I believe the items above represent the major changes that would be introduced by the new ordinance. I would be glad to answer any questions you or your staff may have. or meet with you to discuss these changes. I have also enclosed a matrix that summarizes how the proposed ordinance compares with current stormwater and runoff practices of the County, City, and University.. Water Resources Manager DJ-l-I/ss Enclosure Copy: Jack Kelsey, Acting Director of Engineering & Public Works P~e72 ?o; Members, Board of Supervisors From: Ella WaShington Carey, CMC, Subject: Reading List for February I I, 1998 Date: February 5, 1998 December 6, 1995: February 7, 1996: Apr/IX 1997: Pages I - 23 - Mrs. Humphris Ali - I¥1r. Hartin -- Ail - Pirs, Thdma-s /ewc February 7 1996 (Regn/lar Day Meeting) (Page 39) Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is trying to arrive au a range of poten- tial sizes of organizations which could be a single user and could be accommo- dated by 125,000 gallons per day. He prefaced his remarks by saying he is very supportive of UREF and what its members are trying to do in this area. He said he is veryaware, however, that theUniversity Real Estate Foundanlon has an interest in making this profitable for itself, as well as furthering the interest of the mission of the University· He stated that wizhin this context and with the current proffers, etc., it is more or less up to the Foundatmon to decide how the property ms used. He added that if a certain company with 2,0~0 employees comes to the area, and although the Qompany doesn't ~equire a lot of water, out it brings ~,~uu employees to 'LEe azu~, lu will ha~e a significant impact on the infrastructure of Albemarle County. He stated that he wants to have some level of confidence with the proffers before this Board that the Supervisors can still protect public interest in terms of what might happen at this site. He went on to say that there are possibili- ties where the interest~UREF~nd the University are on one side to a very great degree, but the in~ere~to Albemarle County taxpayers is very great on the other side. He sai~ he is trying to balance this in light of trying to recognize that this is a good use for the area. He commented that he wants the Foundation members to do whatever they want to do there and he wants them to have some flexibility, but he wanus to have some assurance that this Board or a future Board has some oversight to the ultimate user beyond the certain absolute size. He commented that the Planning Con~aission is thinking in terms of wa~er, but he is aware that there are some uses which don't require a lot of water in the manufacturing process. Mr. cinkaIa stated that the debate is whether or not there should be a size restriction placed on the user after which a Foundatmon representative would have to come back for special approval. He said the 125,000 gallons per day is clearly a restriction on s~ze regardless of whether the number is appropriate, after which this Board would have no give special approval. He referred to the transportation profferwhere improvements have to be made at certain density levels, so there ms some protection on the surrounding road network. He said this is a difficult issue. Mr. Bowerman commenned that he is more interested in protection for the schools rather than the roads. Mr. Cinkala stated that he thinks the water usage proffer is unprece- dented in this communisy, because he does no~ believe anybody else has ever done such a thing before. Ms Ellen Miller remarked that this issue has arisen before, and Foundation representatives have gone through it mentally. She said if the land, itself, is considered, it is very hard to conceive of 2,000,000 square foot users. She stated that the lots are broken up, and they are divided by planned roads. She noted than the topography is not very flat, so it is very difficult to conceive of a single facility of the size being addressed. She mentioned that the largest site on this property is being predicted aE 335,000 square feet. She added that a couple of sites could be combined, but even if the combination possibility is conside=ed, there will not be the type of physical property necessary for a 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 square'foot user who would indicate a desire to have a facility there to accommodate 2,000 employ~ ees. She then discussed the concern about limiting the usage. She said it really isn't to address the intention, but instead it is to address how the market place works in making choices among sites. She stated that there will be occasions when UREF representatives are urying to attract someone here, and they will be up a~ainst other sites in the s=ate, as well as other states. She addedl that the minute there are hurdles people have uo mount, it adds another unknown ~o the equation about whether or not they really could be au the North Fork Park. and UREF loses a relative position on the scale as people are making choices. Mr. Bowerman said he understands what Ms. Miller ~s saying. He stated, though, that the community wants uo accommodate those users who are good for the University, as well as the community, but there could be a conflict from time to time as nhe site is developed. Mr. Bowerman said he is trying uo get assurance for himself and his constituenns who expressed concerns to him that there be some absoluue way of gauging the scale of development there, so it isn't a significant impacn to Albemarle County and Charlottesville with which the taxpayers will have to deal. February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) Mrs. Thomas remarked that she had not known the square footage available for building on any particular site, but she had asked for the square footage of some ef the larger employers in the area. She then mentioned State Farm which employees 1,200 people and has a square footage only slightly more than the 335,000 square feet shown on Section E. She said this would indicate a business such as State Farm for this parceL, and this type of business probably wouldn't use very much water. She added, though, the impacu of having a business such as State Farm come and go with that many children coming to the schools, etc are the sort of things concerning her. She next mentioned Albemarle County's first zoning when County officials bent over backward uo the owners os Land a£on9 ~oute z9 North to give the~l ex~ctiy the zoning they wanted. She said these people were all happy, but no constituent who has ever talked to her since has been happy. She said County officials were so generous to landowners at thau point. She stated that UREF represen- tatives are trying to make this Board see their side, and she certainly u/%derstands the market constrictions. She ngted, though, that there is no way in which present generosiuy is going to'~e remembered by the Supervisors' constituents in future years if the Park does not develop in the way in which she is fully confident the UREF representatives want ir to develop at this ~ ° point. She pointed out that UREF is now UREF Park, Inc. She emphasized that County officials will have uo have the means of nor being sorry for what they did when ~he current representatives of UREF are nor the well meaning people in charge. Mr. Rose said the Supervisors have very good points. He added that this is really a projecu promoted for the University of Virginia, and the Founda- tion representatives only respect and respond uo what the University of Virginia officials want them to do. He said they never go our and do some- thing on their own, and it is always au the University's direction, and will always continue to be that way. He referred ro Mr. Bowerman's remarks about intent, and he said the Planning Commission quesuioned UREF representatives about different issues. He said the UREF people made concessions with uhem and with the neighbors which he thinks has led ro more thoughtful developmenu. He mentioned an example where there could have been a conflict with the community where UREF officials were approached by the State Economic Develop- mentOffice on a prospect. He said before anything was known about what County officials wanted, the UREF officials would nor even talk to this group. He stated that they didn't feel this was the type of organization which would fit well in this community from the community's perspective. He noted that it would have been a project which would have helped out the research efforts of the University, and it would have helped graduate employment, as well as spousal employment. He said it was the kind of business which would nor fit well here, but it might fit well in Richmond or Northern Virginia, so they backed off from it. Mr. Martin remarked that it seems to him that he is looking au this situation completely different from other Board members. He said this is a request for adding a condition ro an area already zoned for certain things. He stated that this condition would expand the area ro almost double ih size, but limits the amount of square footage to 3,000,000. He pointed out that what is being requested could almost be done on half this amount of property. He said he does nor think the Supervisors could tell developers what they wanu them to do, and have any expectation whatsoever that the developer is going ro actually go along with limiting himself sea~ as much as UREF has done in this projecu. He stated that the types of limitations have been proffered which the Supervisors m~ght wish for, but they would never geu these many restric~ tions from a private developer who was lUSt developing the property primarily to make a profit. He said in the beginning it was noted that UREF wanus ro make a profit, but these restrictions are such that a profit will be very difficult. He pointed ou~tha~t-heir biggest motivation is for the connection with the University. He then asked if things are left jusu as they are, could a user bring in 2,000 people from outside of the community uo use 300,000 gallons of wauer as opposed to the 125,000 gallons to which the UREF represen- tatives have limited themselves. He wondered if this type of use could nou be on the properuy that is already zoned. Mr. Bowerman responded that he does not have an answer to Mr. Martin's question. Mr. Martin next asked if what he believes is true, then why are the Supervisors being so stubborn about this matter. He wondered if, because the University is involved, the Supervisors are having such expectations which have never been placed on any private developer. He said he read the February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) affirmatively. Mr. Perkins said he has been told that there is a possibility Con Agra might double the use of Crozet~s water in the hex= several years. Mr. Brent replied that Con Agra is increasing its demand, but it won't double during the aext few years. He said plans are on the drawing board now to expand this plant. He stated that Con Agra will be using more water in the future, but it will be using lees than the previous users of the plant which were Del Monte and Morton's. He added that it is anticipated the supply in Crozet is capable of meeting the ultimate buildou5 of the growth area. Mrs. Thomas asked at what point will this section of the Crozet inuer- ~ep~o~ have to be eniargeu, aha she poln~eu out the% there are piannin~ options. She said-there doesn't have to be Crozet growth at that point, if enlarging the interceptor is a major undertaking that otherwise wouldn't be undertaken. She stated that she doesn't have a feeling for the complexity or the difficulty of any of these things, and she doesn't know whether the Supervisors should be trying to keep the Crozet interceptor from being enlarged, so they would not encourage Crozet to build to its ultimate capac- ity. She wondered how the Supervisors can judge the magnitude of this discussion. She stated that she has no idea how uo react to this conversation because it all sounds difficult to her. She said growth is going to entail costs also, so it appears uo her to be a toss up. She asked if this type of thinking is naive. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff will have to study this matter with the help of Mr. Benish to give the Supervisors some analysis of what the costs and trade-off would be. He said Mrs. Thomas has raised a good question relating to whether to limit the current design of buildout for Crozet in order to avoid the cost of upgrading the intercepsor. He stated that unless Mr. Benish already has such information, his staff may have ~o bring this information back to this Board. (F~. Bowerman left at 11:22 a.m.) Mr. Benish stated that the Comprehensive Plan lays out the schematic of w~ere~t~cipa.t~--~gmo~th_~illhe~accommodated, and there will be financial costs ~o doing that. He said as these points of costs are reached, the Comprehensive Plan will have to be examined agazn uo see ii changes can be made that will create a better financial situation. He added that the direction now is ~o try uo accommodate what is anticipated for growth over the next 20 years in the County, which has been accomplished through selected growth areas. He stated that if the Crozet growth area is limited, it will have to be replaced somewhere else zn the County, and this will also have a cost. He agreed with Mr Tucker that an analysis would hereto be done, although an important questlon is when should it be done. He asked if the analysis should be done as the threshold is approached in Crozet, or should it be done now. Mrs. Thomas commented that she sees all of these things indicating that wherever there is growth, there will be expenszve utility aspects. She said she doesn't see any one of them as being controlled by one thing anymore than any other. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:24 a.m.) Mr. Benish stated that, given the County's Growth Management Policy, as much growth as possible should be encouraged in growth areas. He said if all of these growth areas are served with public sewer services, extensive costs can be anticipated. He went on Eo say that although the expansion areas might be remote se existing services, the focus was to .consider existing growth areas and areas where there could be-reasonable extensions of.services. He added that this is one of the reasons why other expansions to Crozet were considered. He said although other possible study areas were considered, other factors were also involved, but utilities played an imporuanu role as far as which areas were chosen uo consider. He remarked that there will absolutely be significant costs. He noted that one of staff's concerns at the outset in looking a.u the Land Use Plan was uo address the long term picture in ~iney Moku/tain and the Camelot Treatment Plant. He stated that this is a ~hicken and egg type of thing in how to plan for the ultimate system, but an qalternate picture was needed as far as~ is going to happen in that area, He said, otherwise, the risk would be ~Ib~ making an incremental improvement and using the money inefficiently. He said there are sErong public feelings about continuing the growth on Rouue 29 North, and there are als0 the traffic concerns. He stated that some people wonder if the traffio problems are equal February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) or a greater concern than providing utilities. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had a very difficult time grappling with this issue, and he thinks there was sentiment with the Commission that ultimately there will be expansion there, but there were concerns in designating that area. He referred to the concept of havinG a bigger picture of where growth could take place, which allows 40 to 50 year utility planning and 20 to 30 years trans- portation planning of possible scenarios of growth. He said in this manner it is possible to get a better picture of what the implications are for utility systems. Mr. Petrini said the past, present and near term £utmre h~¥= been discussed. He told the Board members that he will make a few co~nents about the near term future, as well as the far term future, and he would refer to some long capabilities available. He wens on to say there are three require- ments to meet the demands of growth. He said "safe yield" means how much water is there to draw from safely, and if there is a long drought, how much water can be consistently drawn to the system under these conditions. He explained that it is not how much water is available, but how much yield can be drawn safely from the water. He said the Buck Mountain reservoir is the primary choice to address this matter because it can be implemented as early as seven years if the process is begun now, and it can be delayed as long as necessary depending on when the safe yield is needed for growth. He stated that a second choice would be installation of a crest control system on the existing South Fork Rivanna dam by using a device for raising the existing reservoir level. He said this is a second choice both from an environmental viewpoint, as well as a cost vmewpoint. He explained that the second require- menu is production capacity for water. He added that there can be all the safe yield that ms needed, and it can be there for use, but if the production is lacking to proce'ss it through the water treatment plant to serve the public, then it does no good. He stated that, most importantly, peak demands must be met during the year, which usually occur during a warm spell in late summer, and there is a high week or month demand_ He noted that an average daily use is significantly lower when a long term such as one year is consid- ered. ~e said peak demands can be met for the next five to ten years with the existing infrastructure, and some filters a~ South Riva~-ua can be converted from low rate to high rate. He stated that this is planned to be done now so it will be mn operation this summer. He explained that one of the filters out of four will be run for .a year, and operational data will be collected. Ee said if it ms confirmed that everything ms working as anticipated, the South Fork Rivarnua water treatment plant can be increased from 8 million gallons per day tO 12 million gallons per day, so there can be a four million gallon per day increase. He said this is quite a bi of capacity uo serve short term needs s~ch as five ~o ten years. However, he explained that the infrastruc- ture is not in place for the time when more wa~er is needed and Buck Mountain comes on line, He stated that the smze of the South Fork Rivanna treatment capacity will have to be doubled, although the whole treatment plant will not have to physically be doubled. He reported shat this could happen within a range of seven years ~o 20 yea~s from now. He next discussed the third requirement which is the treatment capacity for sewage. ~e said all of the water coming in has co go somewhere if it ms aot consumed in business or industry, and the Moore's Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant will have to be relied upon to handle the County's needs. He said presently there are 4,000,000 Gallons of availability in the treatmenu plant, so this matches the planned increase at the water treatment plant, and short term needs can be met. He referred again co the time when the Buck Mountain plant will come on line, and he said as more demand occurs in the future, the treatment capacity at the South Fork Rivanna treatment facility will have to be doubled. He said there mrs design provisions to take care of this situation. He mentioned that the key to 'everything is the safe yield, but if there can't be safe yield, then there won't be any usable water, and the sewage treatment won't be necessary. ~e stated that in order to find out how uo get the safe yield, a consulting firm has to be hired to do a prescoping ~ask, and this will occur now. He said this prescoping task will develop a report ac the end of this year or the beginning of next year to determine two key factors. He reported that the prescoping task members will consider initially Buck Mountain, and they will determine if there is a Spiny Mussel endangered species problem, because ff there is such a problem, it will have uo be addressed. He said an endangered species cannot be built over because it will drown its habi-tat. If it is not there, the situation is much better, but if it is, relocation of the Spiny Mussel has to be considered for another area. He mentioned that ~here is another Spiny Mussel identified in the South Fork Rivanna reservoir system, so if the Buck Mountain site doesn't Dav/d P. Bowerrnan Charlotte Y. Humphr~s Forrast R. Ma~hal~ Jr. COUNF~ OF A~ ~q~2V~l ~ Office of Bo~d of Super~sors 401 Mdnlfire Road Charlottesville, Vkginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX [804) 296-5800 Febmary16,1998 Charles S. Martin Waiter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. J. Randolph Parker 415 West Leigh Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Parker: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 11, 1998, you were reappointed to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board as the Samuel Miller District representative. This term will expire on April 16, 2002. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opporttmity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity, Sincerely, Forrest R, Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis J. W. Brent Printed on rec~ucled paper David P. Bow~man Charlotl~ Y. Humphds F~rmst R. Ma~hall, Jr. COUNTY OF A~ REMARLE C~ce of Board of Superiors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottes~lle. V~rginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Febmary16,1998 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perl,ins SalI~ H. Thomas Mr. W, Ivar Mawyer PO Box 60 North Garden, VA 22959 Dear Mr. Mawyer: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 11, 1998, you were reappointed to the Equalization Board as the Samuel Miller District representative. This term will expire on December 31, 1998. On behalf of the Board, I would like ro take this opportunity ro express the Board's appreciation for your willingness ro continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bmce Woodzell Printed on recycled paper David lq. Bowerman Rio Cha~otte Y. Hurnphr~ Jack Joueff COUNTY OF ALREMARLE Office of Board of 401 McInfire Road Charlottesv/lJe, V'a'~nia 22902..4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 February16,1998 Mr. John F. Miller Ch/el of Police 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Chief Miller: At the Board of Supervtsors meeting held on February 11, 1998, you were reappoimed to tile James River Alcohol Safety Action Program, with term to expire on Januat3, 1, 2001. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the'Board's appreciation for your w/llingness m continue to serve the County in this capac/¢' Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM~bh cc: James L. Camblos. III Larry Davis Penny A. Nofford Mary. E. Hutchinson c:xwpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper To CHARLOTTE HUMPHRIS.CF~ARLES MARTIN, DAVID BOWER1W3LN, SALLY THOMAS Cc LARRY DAVIS,ELLA CAREY From: Bob Tucker Subject: Fwd: Rivanna River Festival Date: 2/12/98 Time: ll:31AM Originated by: PMULLAN ~ ACVA on 2/12/98 8:52AM Forwarded by: BTUCKER @ ACVA on 2/12/98 ll:31AM (CFLANGED) EVERYONE: ATTACHED IS PAT MULLANEY'S RESPONSE TO THE RIVANNA FESTIVAL. PAT'S REVIEW INDICATES THAT NO REVIEW/APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS IT RELATES TO THE TOWE PARK AGREEMENT. I HAVE ASKED PAT TO REVIEW WITH AMELIA, HOWEVER, TO ENSURE THAT ALL ZONING REGS. ARE COMPLIED WITH BUT WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT NO FURTHER ACTION BY THE BOARD IS NECESSARY. THANKS, BOB *****ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS***** I just reviewed Kay Slaughter's letter and discussed with Larry Davis. I don't see where there is any action required by the Towe Park Committee. There was a time when alcohol was being considered and I said we would not allow it so that would have required an action by the committee to overule my decision. Amplified music is non a problem. Our County code says no person shall operate amplified music in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the park by others. The park will be closed to all other activities that dayr so that is not an issue. I would have approved this event as described and sent it on to the Towe Park committee and board for information. This is the first we have been able to get anything nailed down mn writing for this event. There is nothing here that causes me alarm. We will take the actmons necessary to protect the playing fields and other facilities. Please contact me if you have any questions.. ,0 vtlle £it9 X§ns Ofc Fax:804-970-;890 Feb 11 '98 I5:17 P. 02 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of the Mayor P.O. Boxgl I · Charlottesville, Virginia * 22902 Telephone 804-971-31 !3 BY FAX February 11, 1998 Mr. Chades Martin Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 M~lntira Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Charles: As you know, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County ere partnering with the Junior League and several area organizations to plan a I~vanna River Festival on May 9th fr~m 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at T~we Park. The day will be both fun and educational, and is being planned to promote the Rivanna River for recreational, environmental, and historical purpo~s. Some of the organizations expected to participate are the Albemarle County Hiatodcal SocietT, Rivanna Trails Foundation. Virginia Museum of Natural History at ~ University of virginia, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, Archeological Society of Virginia, and the Environmental Education Center. The Junior League will hold fun~traising "Duck Races" to benefit the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and.will organize ~everal family-oriented activities, craft and f~:l vendors, and musical ~ntertainment. We have also invited all City and County schools to participate. We had requested some time ago that a meeting of the Towe; Park Commiffee be scheduled so that they could consider our request to all¢w amptifed music on the day of the Festival This is the only activity proposedfor the Festival that requires the Committee's action. -Unfortunately, it does not appear that a meeting can be held prior to the deadline for pdnting of the program for the.event (February 20), sO i am asking that you assent to the waiver by mail or phone ~ that we can I~roceed. We have c~nta¢ted the City's representatives on the Committee, David Tosoano and Virginia Daugherty, and they have'agreed to supl~ort the one-day Qnly WalV~l'. The amplifed music is pcoposad to be held on the lower pad of the park, adjacent to the river just below the duck pond, a location that should minimize the sound from traveling to adjacent properties. The Junior League has scheduled The · C,'ville Cit~ ~§rs Ofc Fax:$04¢970-5890 Feb 11 '98 15:!8 P. 03 Page 2 Stoned Wheat Things to pen~orm from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. ancl Terri Allard from 3:30 ~3.m, to 5:30 p.m, 1:he next meeting of the River Festival Planning Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18th at 4:00 p.m~ in the Michie Annex Conference Room of City Hall. We would welcome your attendance at the meeting if you would like further Information about the Festival and activities ~roposed. Please give me a call (977..40~0 - work; 971-5813 - home) if you have specific questions. I would greatly appreciate your assistance In resolving this Issue in a timely fashion. I am very excit~l about the Festival and have been impressed with the efforts of the City, County and community organizations to join together to make it a success. Sincerely yours, Mayor cc: Pat Mullaney Leon Churchill 6'viile Cit~ Mgrs Ofc Fax:804-970-3890 Feb 1i '98 15:i8 P. 04 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of thc M~yor Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone 804=971-3113 BY FAX February tl, 1998 Mr. David Bowerrnan Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear David: As you maybe avcare, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are partnering with the Junior League and several area organizations tO plan a Rivanna River Festival on May 9th from 'I0:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. et ~owe Park. The day will be both fun and educational, and is being planned to prombte the Rivanna River for recreational, environmental, and historiCal purpcaes. 8orhe of the organizations expected to participate are the AIbemarl$ County Historical Society, Rivanna Trails Foundation, Virginia Museum of Natural History at the University of Virginia, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, Archeological SOciety of Virginia, and the Environmental Education Canter. The Junior League will l~old fundraising "Duck Races" to benefit the Shelter for Help in Emergency,' and will organize several family-oriented activities, craft and food vendors, and musiCal entertainment. We have also invited all City and County schools t¢ participate. We had requested some time ago that a meeting of'the Tows[Park Committee be scheduled so that they could consider our request tb allow amplifed music on the day of the Festival. This is the only activity proposed for the Festival that requires the Committee's action. Unfortunately, it does not appearilhat a meeting can be held pdor to the deadline for pdnting of the program for the:~vent (February 20), so I am asking that you assent to the waiver by,mail or phone Bo that we can proceed. We have contacted the City's representatives on the CoCcmittee, David Toscano and Virginia Daugherty, and they have agreed to support ~he one-day only waiver. The amplifed music is proposed to be held on the lower part df the park, adjacent to the river just below the duck pond, a location that should minimize the sound from traveling to adjacent properties. The Junior League has sdneduled The Page 2 Stoned Wheat Things to perform from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. and Terri Aliard from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The next meeting of the River Festival Planning Committee is scheduled fo~ Wednesday, February 18th at 4:00,p.m. in the Michie Annex Conference Room of City Hall. We would welcome your attendance at the meeting if yc,u would like fur[her information about the Festival and activities proposed. Please give me a call (977-4090 - work; 971-5813 - home) if you have specific questions. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving this issue in a timely fashion, I am very excited about the Festival and have been impressed with the efforts of the City, County and community organizations to join together to make it a success. Sincerely yours, Mayor cc: Pat Mulianey Leon Churchill