|
Summary
Staff Report:
This proposed text amendment was initiated by the Planning
Commission on July 27, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, closed the
public hearing, and continued this matter until the next
meeting of the Planning Commission. In order to deal with
issues concerning use of lead shot at skeet and trap ranges,
a new section, 5-904, was added. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission re-initiated this text amendment on
September 28, 2006. On October 28, 2006, after conducting a
public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended adoption to the Board of Supervisors. On
December 14, 2006, the Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing on the proposed text amendment and, after closing
the public hearing, voted to delay action on the amendment
for up to 120 days. The deferral was made in response
to requests by representatives of the Airlie Foundation and
Center for additional time to study the impacts of the
ordinance on their future plans. The Airlie
representatives have subsequently indicated to staff that
they have no objection to the amendment now moving forward.
Because so much time has passed since the public hearing,
staff is bringing the text amendment back to the Board in a
work session so that we can review the proposed changes
again with the Board.
As part of the work session, staff will be bringing forward
one new issue related to the flood plain regulations for
consideration by the Board. Staff has had an inquiry
in the last month regarding redevelopment of commercial
properties on Route 29 in New Baltimore. These
properties are located almost entirely within the FEMA
mapped floodplain, and under the current regulations very
limited improvements are allowed to the existing structures
in the floodplain. The current regulations allow
repair, reconstruction or improvement of existing structures
in the floodplain so long as the footprint of such structure
is not increased, and provided further that the cost of such
work does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure. These existing provisions complement the
Board’s longstanding policy of preserving the floodplain.
However, the Route 29 redevelopment issue raises the
question of whether or not it may be appropriate to allow
redevelopment of commercial properties located in the
floodplain, subject to certain standards and limitations.
The previously proposed changes to the floodplain
regulations are shown in the attached proposed ordinance,
with additions highlighted in bold-underline and deletions
struck through. These changes are listed and discussed
below, by code section. In addition, after Planning
Commission action, the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation suggested changes. These changes are shown
in bold italics.
Section 4-401 is amended to include in the purpose that the
regulations, among other things, are designed to prevent
compromise of the hydraulic and flood carrying capacities of
the floodplains.
Section
4-402 makes no substantive change, but incorporates language
intended to more clearly denote that the basis for the
floodplain delineation is the FEMA maps, rather than
referring to a definition in another part of the ordinance.
Section
4-403 authorizes the Zoning Administrator, in consultation
with the County Engineer, to make necessary interpretations
as to the exact location of the boundaries of floodplains if
there appears to be a conflict between the mapped floodplain
boundary, elevations and actual physical conditions. The
existing ordinance states that the FEMA maps shall be the
basis for delineation of the location of the floodplain
boundaries but also states that the Zoning Administrator may
make the decision as to the exact location of boundaries
based on best available data. The revised language seeks to
reconcile these two divergent regulations, clarifying that
the FEMA maps provide the general boundaries, but that these
can be adjusted by the Zoning Administrator. The purpose
of this change and the change to Section 4-403 is to return
the Zoning Administrator to making minor field adjustments,
as appropriate. Section 4-404 is a significant change. It
authorizes the Administrator to request floodplain studies
in cases where the FEMA defined floodplain does not conform
with readily available and acceptable topography of a
subject site. These studies can be time consuming and
expensive. On the other hand, individuals sometimes proceed
with existing floodplain boundaries even where it is clear
that such boundaries are meaningless, as our ordinance
allows this. The purpose of this change is to secure more
accurate data on which to base development review, in cases
where there seems to be a significant potential issue.
Section
4-405 sets forth permitted uses in the floodplain. It
authorizes the existing practice of allowing open fences and
underground utilities within the floodplain. It also allows
improvements to existing roads. It also allows for the
creation of constructed wetlands and other similar
mitigation projects. Accessory commercial and industrial
uses are moved from the permitted uses to special exception
uses. The changes also clarify that some of these permitted
uses may involve structures (such as culverts for driveways
or fences), provided that in any case where such a structure
is built, an assessment is done as part of the zoning permit
to demonstrate that the floodplain is not negatively
impacted.
Section
4-406 sets forth uses requiring a special exception in the
floodplain; the changes are minor except for changing
accessory industrial and commercial uses to a special
exception use.
Section
4-407 delineates certain limitations on uses in the
floodplain. Subsection three provides: “Under no
circumstances shall any use, activity, and/or development
adversely affect the capacity or configuration
of the channels or floodways floodplains
of any watercourse, drainage ditch or any other drainage
facility or system which would increase flood heights and/or
velocities on other parcels or alter the configuration
of the stream channel in upstream or downstream locations.”
It is inherent in the floodplain regulatory program that
floodplain regulations are designed to protect downstream
parcels. For unknown reasons, Fauquier County Engineering
has not looked to downstream impact when assessing the
impact of floodplain projects. This amended language
remedies this deficiency.
Also in Section 4-607, a new subsection five establishes
that certified, engineered plans are required for wetland
mitigation projects. Such plans historically have been
requested by County Engineering; this proposed section makes
this requirement explicit.
Section
4-408, which allows existing structures to be repaired,
reconstructed or improved in the floodplain has been deleted
because this issue is now addressed in Section 4-405(9).
This change also eliminates the only reference to “floodway”
in the provisions; the title of this existing section
referred to “existing structures in the floodway” whereas
the text itself seems to address structures in the broader
floodplain. Relative to how this section has been applied
historically, the proposed language creates no substantive
change.
Section
4-409 has been deleted. The procedure for computing maximum
allowable density in the floodplain is detailed in Section
2-308 and does not need to be repeated here.
Section
4-410 has been deleted. Such information may already be
required by the Code official under the building code, where
necessary.
The
definitions section is also proposed to be amended to
clarify and add definitions, where appropriate.
ATTACHMENT
Proposed Text Amendment
|