|
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.
The 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
to 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.
Redevelopment In the Floodplain
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
earlier this summer regarding redevelopment of commercial
properties owned by the Chakalos family 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.
Supervisor Downey has asked staff to look at the issue of
whether or not it may be appropriate under certain
circumstances, to allow redevelopment of commercial
properties located in the floodplain, subject to certain
standards and limitations. The goal would be to allow
commercial properties within the floodplain that were
already developed prior to floodplain regulations to improve
the economic viability and character of the uses without
increasing the impacts on the floodplain, or ideally,
decreasing the impacts. Depending on the site, the
particular floodplain, and the use, staff believes it might
be possible for redevelopment to occur with benefits to the
floodplain achieved by relocating, raising or cantilevering
buildings on such parcels. In cases where a significant
portion of the site is already impervious, it might also be
possible to effect improvements to water quality by the
addition of pervious surfaces and control and treatment of
run-off.
Staff has
done an initial assessment based on GIS data of commercial
properties in the floodplain, identifying 67 commercially
zoned properties (C-1, C-2, C-3 and CV) partially or
completely in the floodplain (Attachment). The total area
with commercial zoning located in the floodplain is 114
acres. Staff believes that some of these lots have
probably been removed from the floodplain through the map
amendment process with FEMA, but these changes are not
currently mapped on the official floodplain map. Staff is
currently going through the parcels on a case-by-case basis
to evaluate the map updates and expects that the total
number of commercial parcels and acreage in the floodplain
will decrease, but this assessment uses the currently
available data.
Supervisor
Downey asked staff to focus on reviewing C-2 zoned
property. There are 77.38 C-2 zoned acres in the
floodplain, comprising all or part of 46 different lots.
Ten of the C-2 lots are currently undeveloped, leaving 36
lots that would potentially benefit from an amendment
allowing redevelopment in the floodplain. About
two-thirds of these lots are almost entirely within the
floodplain. A review of the aerial photography for the
lots shows that most of these lots are not 100 percent
developed, with significant portions remaining unbuilt and
unpaved. In other cases, the portion of the lot within the
floodplain is minor, but that portion is almost entirely
developed.
The broad
range of characteristics of potential redevelopment sites
confirms that any potential redevelopment allowed would best
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The existing
floodplain ordinance utilizes the special exception process
to allow certain uses and construction within the
floodplain, and staff would recommend that the Board utilize
the special exception process for any redevelopment
authorized in order to allow circumstances to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis by the Board.
If the Board
wishes to pursue an amendment to allow redevelopment in the
floodplain, staff would recommend that this text amendment
be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration
to include this major issue. Staff can work with the
Planning Commission to develop standards for a redevelopment
special exception to assure that any redevelopment does not
infringe any further on the floodplain that existing
development and that such redevelopment is either neutral in
terms of impacts or improves flooding conditions and/or
water quality. Additional review is also necessary to
assure that any revisions to allow redevelopment in the
floodplain will comply with FEMA.
Attachments:
1.
Proposed Amendment
2.
List of Commercial Floodplain Properties
3.
Proposed Resolution |