Ordinance and Guidance Manual Relationship
By StormBlog53. Filed in Permit Application and Review Process |
While DuPage County has from time to time published guidance for certain sections of the Stormwater Ordinance over the years, there has not been a comprehensive overhaul of the Guidance Manual since it was first published. There seems to be differences of opinion on the usefulness of the Guidance documents, with some wanting more specific language in the Ordinance and others preferring more general Ordinance language supplemented by robust guidance. Weaving into this thread is a feeling by some that the Ordinance should be “consistently applied” while others push for more “flexibility”.
How do you see the relationship between an Ordinance and the Guidance document that accompanies it? Is it “better” to include essentially guidance language in an ordinance, or minimize the language in the ordinance in favor of relegating the “how to do it” to a separate and non-regulatory document? Should one try to cover as many specific situations as possible in the Ordinance, or make the language more general? What types of situations do you believe the Administrator in each community needs flexibility on?
Thursday, November 12th 2009 at 11:58 am |
The ordianance should be general and so should the guidance document. The staff is applying things, as they interpret them, to a very specific level which seems to go beyond the ordiannce and guidance document. This seems to over rule municipal positons on things. The specifics of FEQ modeling assumptions and methodologies are not in the ordinannce and are the center of serious issues on floodplain mapping in the eastern portion of the county. Eventually, the same issue will be on th e table in the western portion of the county too. Water quality seems to be a somewhat dificult area to apply specific criteria to non point source issues which are still evolving at the State and Federal levels. Appendix E has been gathering dust on most bookshelves for many years. this is partluy due to its empghais on process which was appropriate when we first started using th eordinance. It was going to be revised a number of times but funding issues stopped the update. However, maybe consultants know the ordinance well enough that the guidance document is no longer really needed for the areas currently covered by the ordianance. However, redevelopment offers a new array of issues that may well be served by a new gudinace chapter. A review of all exemptions granted by the stormwater committee may be useful in determining what new guidance is needed in the guidance document. Nuanced interpretations of theordinance should be covered in the guidance manual too. while very specific and I am arguing for a general guidance manual, the nuanced material is the cutting edge of the ordinance and needs ot be covered somewhere. Perhaps we need a new document altogether that covers adminitrative matters that seem to be unpublished, not formally approved by the stakeholders and yet guide many things in getting a project approved.
Monday, November 16th 2009 at 12:05 pm |
I concur regarding the revised FEQ results. It is difficult to implement the new results, not having any other information than a cross-section elevation up- or downstream. Is there no way to issue an accessible draft map of the revised floodplain/floodway for public use?
Thursday, December 17th 2009 at 5:07 pm |
It is absolutely essential that the FEQ information that the County staff possesses be made accessible to municipalities, consultants, and anyone who wants to look at them. My community has had many proposed projects where the County staff uses the elevations generated as the regulatory elevation, often after the owner/consultant has done quite a bit of design work on the project. The data needs to be made available for use, as well as for review and comment, before it is used as regulatory.
Also, post the rationale used for the various “safety factors” applied to elevations when PVSTATS has not yet been run.
The argument that I’ve heard against doing this is that the data is preliminary and still a work in progress. That’s the great thing about the internet–it’s easy to post a document and update is when information changes.
Monday, November 16th 2009 at 11:58 am |
It would seem that the survey results may dictate what type of revsion occurs wihtin the guidance document (if any). Doesn’t the document need updating regardless to include BMPs? In general, the Ordinance language is specific now, if there is clarification needed on certain items that are routinely questioned or at issue, why not include them with a disucssion of what is/is not required in the guidance document?
Tuesday, November 17th 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Appendix E is difficult to use and very outdated. I think use of a technical guidance document makes sense, and the BMP technical guidance manual is very useful. Appendix E should be completely revised after the ordinance itself is revised.
FEQ and PVSTATS is a whole subject unto itself. At least the Salt Creek FEQ/PVSTATS data has now been published, and the output can be seen and discussed. In the western part of the county, there are FEQ/PVSTATS studies “in progress”, not yet finished, but the county pulls them out and uses the incomplete data for individual development projects, applying arbitrary safety factors. The current ordinance, in section 15-132 item 2, states, “The regulatory flood plain shall be determined by the highest flood elevation for a development site at the time of application as determined by:
a. Flood plain studies in Watershed Plans
b. Flood plain studies prepared as part of Interim Watershed Plans
c. OWR studies…
d. Flood insurance studies…
e. Project specific flood plain studies that meet the standards established in the Plan and approved by the Director.” The “in progress” FEQ/PVSTATS studies don’t meet any of these criteria. None of them have been approved by the County Board or by the Director. Either finish the FEQ/PVSTATS and publish them and have the approved by the County Board, or in some other way make them available to the public and put them in compliance with 15-132.2.
Tuesday, December 1st 2009 at 3:59 pm |
Of course another way to read 15-132.2 is that the “standards” established in the Plan have been approved. In any case, the County has revised how FEQ is used and no longer uses an additional ’safety factor’. In addition, FEQ is used only for lowest opening, not for compensatory storage, unless PVSTATS has been completed, in order to ensure that any future structures are reasonably safe from flooding to the best information available. This change was disseminated at a recent Municipal Engineers meeting, but additional clarification and understanding should be provided in an updated guidance document so that everybody is aware of how the County applies FEQ. And based on the comments and feedback over the years from communities, it would seem Sec. 15-132.2 could be reworded or rewritten to be less confusing.
Monday, December 14th 2009 at 2:38 pm |
The problem of deciding what goes into the Ordinance and what goes into the Guidance Manual can be complex because we are dealing with a complex system that isn’t entirely understood. In our efforts to control storm water runoff we’ve tried to account for every scenario and manage every situation possible. This can lead to a very rigid system of rules, regulations, processes and procedures. On the otherhand not clearly and completely stating what is required and when has also lead to some confusion.
I believe if we can come to some common ground between the County, municipalities, consultants and developers we can at least have a starting point. Given the current economic climate I think everyone would agree that the Ordinance and Manual need to be designed in a way that facilitates a developer easily as possible through the permit process while at the same time properly manages storm water runoff so as not to increase flooding and lessens the impact of storm water pollution.
I believe this topic is worth the group spending some time dicussing. The group did a lot of work designing a BMP Manual that still is developing, but has been a very useful tool. We were able to impliment a requirement that allowed flexibility with certain parameters. There was thought that went into how BMPs impacted small sites and roadways and compromises were made. If we could take that same approach and apply it to other issues such as redevelopment, wetlands and FEQ requirements. These seem to be a few of the more difficult sections to deal with.
The Technical Guidance Manual needs to be updated on a consistent basis and should be promptly or concurrently done with the Ordinance update. The Manual will provide the consistency that we all want to achieve as it provides the insight into the Ordinance’s interpretation. The Ordinance should really have only what is required, not an expalnation or interpretation of what is required. Having two complete and up-to-date documents will provide us with the consistency in interpretation of the requirements. If one or both are missing we won’t achieve consistency, which is why we are having difficulties.
Thursday, December 31st 2009 at 11:53 am |
Having submitted dozens of projects to DPCDEC for SWM permits over the years, I must admit that I very seldom use the Appendix E Technical Guidance document anymore. Like most applicants, my main interest is to submit the plans and SWM package to DEC in the format that will be most readily acceptable and will result in the project being approved without additional reviews, re-submittals, and frustrating delays.
The DEC Tab 1-9 checklist document is somewhat useful for this purpose, but we have compliled our own in-house checklist, based on reviewing and comiling repeated comments from years and years of DEC rejection letters. We have found that there are similar or identical review comments that keep getting repeated over and over again, from project to project.
This is what the eager-to-please applicant really needs — a detailed checklist from the permitting authority that summarizes specifically the mininum submittal requirements that are applicable to each type of project. I suspect that DEC may have such a detailed checklist already, and it would would be most helpful to share this with all permit applicants.
I’m not familiar with the SWM permit submittal procedures of all communities in DPC, but I have recently observed that the Village of Westmost has a very detailed and clearly understood checklist system for SWM permit applicants that is user-friendly, and their system for providing and responding to review comments is also one of the best I’ve experienced countywide.