Fairfax County seeks input on new stormwater ordinance
 |
| This stormwater management facility, on Degroff Court, is considered inadequate to prevent flooding in the Annandale Acres neighborhood. |
The Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) is seeking community input in the development
of a new stormwater management ordinance. The new ordinance, required to comply with new state regulations, could have a major
impact on stormwater mitigation requirements for infill developments, a major
concern in the Annandale/Mason area.
of a new stormwater management ordinance. The new ordinance, required to comply with new state regulations, could have a major
impact on stormwater mitigation requirements for infill developments, a major
concern in the Annandale/Mason area.
DPWES held an introductory
meeting July 24 on the state regulatory changes and has
scheduled two meetings, Sept. 24 and Oct. 17, to solicit input from
stakeholders. Both meetings are 1-5 p.m. in room 106/107 of the Herrity
Building, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.
meeting July 24 on the state regulatory changes and has
scheduled two meetings, Sept. 24 and Oct. 17, to solicit input from
stakeholders. Both meetings are 1-5 p.m. in room 106/107 of the Herrity
Building, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.
An email to the community
says DPWES wants to identify approximately 60 stakeholders to participate in
those sessions to help county staff “think through several issues where the county
has flexibility or the ability to adopt more stringent requirements than the
state standards.”
says DPWES wants to identify approximately 60 stakeholders to participate in
those sessions to help county staff “think through several issues where the county
has flexibility or the ability to adopt more stringent requirements than the
state standards.”
DPWES has asked organizations
interested in participating in the upcoming meetings to fill out an online form indicating dates available and topics of interest.
The deadline was Aug. 30, but
there are still about 10 to 12 spots open, says Bruce McGranahan of the stormwater division in DPWES. He urges people interested in being part of the stakeholder
group to fill out the form as soon as possible.
there are still about 10 to 12 spots open, says Bruce McGranahan of the stormwater division in DPWES. He urges people interested in being part of the stakeholder
group to fill out the form as soon as possible.
So far, he says, the group
includes developers, consulting engineers, and representatives of environmental
organizations, neighborhood groups, homebuilder associations, and the Fairfax Federation of Citizens Associations. The Mason District Council of Community Associations is represented by land use attorney
Kathleen McDermott, who has worked with several neighborhoods battling infill development.
includes developers, consulting engineers, and representatives of environmental
organizations, neighborhood groups, homebuilder associations, and the Fairfax Federation of Citizens Associations. The Mason District Council of Community Associations is represented by land use attorney
Kathleen McDermott, who has worked with several neighborhoods battling infill development.
According to McGranahan, the
new state regulations “are really not good for developers,” because they would
impose more stringent requirements. In cases where Fairfax County ordinances
are stricter than the state standards, such as protecting streams from erosion,
“we’ll keep the more stringent county standards,” he said.
new state regulations “are really not good for developers,” because they would
impose more stringent requirements. In cases where Fairfax County ordinances
are stricter than the state standards, such as protecting streams from erosion,
“we’ll keep the more stringent county standards,” he said.
Regarding the development of
small, infill lots, “it probably isn’t going to make a lot of difference,”
McGranahan says, because “the new rules won’t kick in until you get an acre of
disturbance. A larger lot would have more stringent standards.” He says the new
rules “won’t solve existing flooding problems” because they will only affect
projects built after the rules take
effect on July l, 2014.
small, infill lots, “it probably isn’t going to make a lot of difference,”
McGranahan says, because “the new rules won’t kick in until you get an acre of
disturbance. A larger lot would have more stringent standards.” He says the new
rules “won’t solve existing flooding problems” because they will only affect
projects built after the rules take
effect on July l, 2014.
During the July 24 meeting, McGranahan
presented an overview of the state’s new stormwater management regulations. To
determine water quality, a new “runoff reduction method”—which will consider
runoff from impervious, grassed, and forested areas—will replace the “simple
method,” which only addresses the impervious area of a site controlled by a
structural stormwater facility. Developers are allowed to use offsets to
achieve water quality requirements, but not for water quantity.
presented an overview of the state’s new stormwater management regulations. To
determine water quality, a new “runoff reduction method”—which will consider
runoff from impervious, grassed, and forested areas—will replace the “simple
method,” which only addresses the impervious area of a site controlled by a
structural stormwater facility. Developers are allowed to use offsets to
achieve water quality requirements, but not for water quantity.
“These changes will generally
result in more stringent requirements and will favor an increase in smaller
stormwater control facilities that promote infiltration into the soil,” states
a summary of the meeting.
result in more stringent requirements and will favor an increase in smaller
stormwater control facilities that promote infiltration into the soil,” states
a summary of the meeting.
Regarding water quality, the
state water regulations are “situational, based on whether there is existing
localized flooding,” McGranahan says. “This is less stringent than current
county requirements.” Fairfax County will have to
revise stormwater provisions in the county code, Public Facilities Manual(PFM), and other policies and procedures.
state water regulations are “situational, based on whether there is existing
localized flooding,” McGranahan says. “This is less stringent than current
county requirements.” Fairfax County will have to
revise stormwater provisions in the county code, Public Facilities Manual(PFM), and other policies and procedures.
Each of the upcoming meetings
will address approximately four issue areas, with participants assigned to a
team to address a specific issue. These issues, identified during the July
meeting, include the following:
will address approximately four issue areas, with participants assigned to a
team to address a specific issue. These issues, identified during the July
meeting, include the following:
Single-family
home exemptions—The
Virginia Code allows an exemption for single-family dwellings between 2,500 square
feet and one acre. Should the county
provide an exemption? If so, what should
be the cut off? For instance should it be 5,000 square feet or more? Are there
options other than providing a blanket exemption?
home exemptions—The
Virginia Code allows an exemption for single-family dwellings between 2,500 square
feet and one acre. Should the county
provide an exemption? If so, what should
be the cut off? For instance should it be 5,000 square feet or more? Are there
options other than providing a blanket exemption?
Impacts of infill development—Concerns
were expressed that infill development can have cumulative impacts on a
watershed or localized impacts on surrounding properties. What options are
available for addressing issues with infill development while recognizing the
potential difficulty of implementing controls on these properties?
were expressed that infill development can have cumulative impacts on a
watershed or localized impacts on surrounding properties. What options are
available for addressing issues with infill development while recognizing the
potential difficulty of implementing controls on these properties?
Adequate outfall
requirements—New detention
provisions in the state regulations eliminate the need for a downstream
adequacy review and are less stringent than requirements in the current PFM. The Virginia Code allows Fairfax County to
establish a more stringent standard. Should the county retain the more
stringent requirements in the current PFM?
Is there another way of addressing this issue that is different from the
state standard or the PFM?
requirements—New detention
provisions in the state regulations eliminate the need for a downstream
adequacy review and are less stringent than requirements in the current PFM. The Virginia Code allows Fairfax County to
establish a more stringent standard. Should the county retain the more
stringent requirements in the current PFM?
Is there another way of addressing this issue that is different from the
state standard or the PFM?
Impacts on pro-rata share program—Participants
at the July 24 meeting asked how the use of the new runoff reduction method
would affect pro-rata share calculations since the methodology addresses water
quantity through infiltrating runoff into the soil. Should the pro rata share
program be changed as a result of the new regulations? And if so, how?
at the July 24 meeting asked how the use of the new runoff reduction method
would affect pro-rata share calculations since the methodology addresses water
quantity through infiltrating runoff into the soil. Should the pro rata share
program be changed as a result of the new regulations? And if so, how?
Stormwater facilities
in residential areas—The new
state regulations favor implementation of smaller facilities on individual
lots. In general, current county practice is to require facilities to be placed
on out-lots. However, the new requirements will create a greater number of
smaller, distributed facilities, which might create issues and affect lot
yield. Should certain facilities be allowed on individual lots? Who would perform maintenance (the county,
homeowner association, or property owner)?
How would enforcement be handled (maintenance agreement versus other
restriction)?
in residential areas—The new
state regulations favor implementation of smaller facilities on individual
lots. In general, current county practice is to require facilities to be placed
on out-lots. However, the new requirements will create a greater number of
smaller, distributed facilities, which might create issues and affect lot
yield. Should certain facilities be allowed on individual lots? Who would perform maintenance (the county,
homeowner association, or property owner)?
How would enforcement be handled (maintenance agreement versus other
restriction)?
Restrictions on the use
of certain stormwater facilities—The
Virginia
Code and BMP Clearinghouse list the types of stormwater facilities that can be
used to meet requirements. Several
state-approved facilities are different from what is in the current PFM or
there is no equivalent. The county may restrict the use of certain facilities
with written justification. Should the use of certain facilities be
restricted? What criteria should the county
use to determine which facilities to allow or provisionally allow?
of certain stormwater facilities—The
Virginia
Code and BMP Clearinghouse list the types of stormwater facilities that can be
used to meet requirements. Several
state-approved facilities are different from what is in the current PFM or
there is no equivalent. The county may restrict the use of certain facilities
with written justification. Should the use of certain facilities be
restricted? What criteria should the county
use to determine which facilities to allow or provisionally allow?
Stormwater facility
inspections by owners—The Virginia
Code requires “submission of inspection and maintenance reports” to the county
by private stormwater facility operators.
Current practice is for the county to perform a compliance inspection
every five years. What is a reasonable inspection and maintenance report
frequency? Should it be different for different stormwater facility
classifications? What should be the enforcement requirements? Should this
requirement only apply to new facilities, or be retroactive to existing
facilities?
inspections by owners—The Virginia
Code requires “submission of inspection and maintenance reports” to the county
by private stormwater facility operators.
Current practice is for the county to perform a compliance inspection
every five years. What is a reasonable inspection and maintenance report
frequency? Should it be different for different stormwater facility
classifications? What should be the enforcement requirements? Should this
requirement only apply to new facilities, or be retroactive to existing
facilities?
Nutrient credit offset provisions—The
Virginia Code requires the county to allow nutrient offset credits under
certain circumstances. The county has the discretion to allow offsets under
other circumstances. What criteria should the county use for allowing
offsets? How much does the county want
to encourage nutrient offsets versus on-site stormwater facilities?
Virginia Code requires the county to allow nutrient offset credits under
certain circumstances. The county has the discretion to allow offsets under
other circumstances. What criteria should the county use for allowing
offsets? How much does the county want
to encourage nutrient offsets versus on-site stormwater facilities?
During the
question-and-answer period at the July meeting, the summary states, someone
noted that by-right infill development often results in flooding of neighboring
properties and asked whether the new ordinance will address this issue. DWPES
staff responded that this issue can be addressed during discussions of
single-lot exemptions and adequate outfall requirements. Another participant
said developers are not looking at impacts far enough downstream and there
should be focus on downstream problems and the cumulative impact of single-lot
development in the new ordinance. [This is the type of situation affecting the
Annandale Acres and Wilburdale neighborhoods in Annandale.]
question-and-answer period at the July meeting, the summary states, someone
noted that by-right infill development often results in flooding of neighboring
properties and asked whether the new ordinance will address this issue. DWPES
staff responded that this issue can be addressed during discussions of
single-lot exemptions and adequate outfall requirements. Another participant
said developers are not looking at impacts far enough downstream and there
should be focus on downstream problems and the cumulative impact of single-lot
development in the new ordinance. [This is the type of situation affecting the
Annandale Acres and Wilburdale neighborhoods in Annandale.]
Someone else offered several
examples of infill development where large homes have caused flooding issues
for adjacent homes and recommended that the county look at the cumulative
impact of infill development instead of on a lot-by-lot basis.
examples of infill development where large homes have caused flooding issues
for adjacent homes and recommended that the county look at the cumulative
impact of infill development instead of on a lot-by-lot basis.
County staff agreed this is
an important issue, noting that they try to “balance cost/impacts with property
rights.” If the county isn’t able to address this during the initial
stakeholder process, “it may be deferred to an anticipated Phase II of the
process.”
an important issue, noting that they try to “balance cost/impacts with property
rights.” If the county isn’t able to address this during the initial
stakeholder process, “it may be deferred to an anticipated Phase II of the
process.”
Another participant
recommended that the ordinance include a requirement for infill development to
notify adjacent property owners about their plans. County staff responded that
the “there is no state enabling authority that would allow this.”
recommended that the ordinance include a requirement for infill development to
notify adjacent property owners about their plans. County staff responded that
the “there is no state enabling authority that would allow this.”
Someone else asked who is
responsible for drainage issues caused by road structures, noting that road
construction at the intersection of Hummer Road and Annandale Road caused
drainage issues in nearby neighborhoods. The county noted that VDOT, and not
the county, is responsible for culverts under state-maintained roads.
responsible for drainage issues caused by road structures, noting that road
construction at the intersection of Hummer Road and Annandale Road caused
drainage issues in nearby neighborhoods. The county noted that VDOT, and not
the county, is responsible for culverts under state-maintained roads.
One response to “Fairfax County seeks input on new stormwater ordinance”
Leave a reply
Great article. You took a complicated issue and made it more understandable. Thank you.
I have no trust in what our state and especially Fairfax County government officials will institute for stormwater runoff regulations for 2014. I'm pretty sure Fairfax will allow developers to defer stormwater mitigation until Phase II or basically after the project is built and then it's too late. Developers will never go along with having to use their own land to install stormwater drainage systems and will find away around it with in kind payments to the parks, schools, etc.