Comments on: Definitions of Development and Types

By: StormBlog24

StormBlog24 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:03:59 +0000

The project type disctinction makes sense, keeping everything under the “development” definition that is currently in place. With that, would the thresholds for what is required would still be based on the “development” area and then the acutal requirements themselves be based on the project type? For example disturbing xx square feet for a redevelopment project results in a requirement for detaining either no storm event, the 2-, 24-hr storm or the 100-yr storm; whereas distrubding xx sf (any??) for a development project requires 100-yr, 24-hr.

By: StormBlog9

StormBlog9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:06:49 +0000

I like the idea of categorizing different types of developments because I think these categories each have their own set of rules and exceptions that should be applied to them. Currently the definition has been used ultra conservatively to literally include anything and everything, a catch-all and doesn’t recognize the different aspects of “development”.

By: StormBlog23

StormBlog23 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:28:48 +0000

I agree that the word “development” in the current ordinance is used in several different contexts and gets confusing.

Perhaps we should distinguish between “development”–as defined in the ordinance–and “project type” (development, re-development, restoration, public open space, public transportation). Uh-oh–there’s that word “development” again, used in a different context than the defined word. So, we need to re-word our project types to take out that word “development”. Or, re-write the definition itself. Maybe put it in the “purpose” section of the ordinance (15-4) and right up front, say that this ordinance is intended to cover the development of property, including any activity, excavation or fill,……..

If we want to make the revised ordinance more user-friendly, making these separate categories of “project types” is essential.

Another category I would suggest–one for small projects on residential properties. In my community, we have quite a few properties that are partially or entirely in the floodplain. It is beyond confusing for the average homeowner who wants to build a deck, or build a patio, or repair/improve a back porch, or put in a hot tub or swimming pool, or build a garage or shed. This is “re-development”, but should have its own category or subcategory.

Another category–the one you call “public open space” should just be “open space”. What would you do with the owner of a large office campus property that wanted to put in a walking trail around their retention pond? This comes up every once in awhile. This is open space, too, and should be encouraged.

By: StormBlog14

StormBlog14 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:30:12 +0000

The definition of “Development” in the Ordinance is sufficient. Simply put, “development” is anything that affects the discharge of stormwater or affects a Special Management Area. The problem with the term “development” is not within the Ordinance’s definition but rather in the term’s use elsewhere within the Ordinance or when confused with “development” in a different context. The word “project” or some other term may be more appropriate in many instances.
One example is when a village’s planning department looks at a restaurant changing from a ‘BK’ to a ‘McD’. A new owner comes in and makes repairs and changes the sign, and the village development department calls this “re-development”. True, it may be “re-development” for the village but has nothing to do with stormwater “development”. Another example from within the Ordinance is found in Sec. 15-111.3 (see both a and b). In each of these subsections, it appears that stormwater discharge is not affected. So this section is essentially saying that if the development is not a development, then the development may not have to follow the rules for a development. (Yes, I wrote it that way on purpose.) The problem with this section is that the Director or Administrator SHALL CONSIDER granting the exception. It is possible that the Administrator would say that the development which does not meet the definition of “development” still has to follow the rules for a development.

By: StormBlog14

StormBlog14 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:30:53 +0000

Making distinctions based on the “type of project” is only useful if different requirements or threshholds are established for each type. Some thresholds for runoff storage requirements are already included in Sec. 15-111.2. If we intend to expand this section – then OK. Otherwise, creating more definitions just for the purpose of having a bigger list is a waste of space.

By: StormBlog52

StormBlog52 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:12:49 +0000

I think the revised distinctions are useful and we should use them. We need to watch for overlap. For instance does road work meet the same definition as redevelopment? What if a project involves two or more of the distinctions?