What if the Ordinace looked like this…?
Filed in Stormwater Management |
The Steering Committee has settled on a “structure” for the Ordinance update. The Stormwater Ordinance will be reformatted to create a series of “upfront” sections that will steer an applicant directly to the applicable regulatory section for the specific development, and specific site characteristics under consideration. This will be partly in the form of a matrix and partly in the form of text under appropriate front-end articles.
An applicant would first characterize the site he intends to build the project on. The steering committee approved the following categories that pertain to the site pre-project.
- The degree to which a site is already “developed”, as indicated by the “Total Impervious Area” (TIA) of the site. Degrees of development threshold distinctions are contemplated at the less than 15% TIA, 15% to 50% TIA, and greater than 50% TIA.
- Whether or not a site includes “Waters of DuPage County”.
- Whether of not a site includes a “Regulatory floodplain”.
Note that a site may be included under more than one category.
Next, the applicant must characterize the proposed project. The Steering Committee has given a conditional nod to the following project characterizations as a starting point to be used in determining which Ordinance requirements apply.
- Those not meeting the requirements of the categories below will be classified by one or more of the following:
- Change in Impervious area
- Grade changes
- Modification of existing structures
- Construction of new structures
- Modifications of existing buildings
- Construction of new buildings
- Linear Transportation Project-Vehicle and pedestrian facilities in linear land holdings created for that purpose.
- Naturalization Project-A project, or a portion of a larger project, whose purpose is
- Streambank Stabilization
- Wetland Mitigation
- Wetland Mitigation Bank
- Water Quality Improvement
- Stream, Stream habitat, and Upland habitat Restoration; and Forestry management activities
- Watershed Plan Implementation Projects
Based on the characteristics of the site, and the characteristics of the project, the applicant will be directed to specific articles that will define limitations, methodologies, standards and mitigation requirements where appropriate. It is anticipated at that all developments will have certain requirements they must meet, some of them procedural and some regulatory. Procedural requirements that might apply to all include such things as the form and content of a permit submittal, development security, Maintenance requirements, violations, appeals, variances and the like. Universal Regulatory requirements might include such topics as erosion and sediment control and incorporation of Best Management Practices. Within those topics, specific requirements can be tailored to the site and project classifications as appropriate, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.
This concept is a starting point in the Update, and of course will be more fully developed as we proceed. What do you think? What problems do your foresee with this approach as applied to your own community?
Thursday, February 4th 2010 at 4:16 pm |
Please be sure that the category of “Naturalization Projects” includes projects that are limited to the conversion of existing impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces. For example, if a public open space agency such as a Park District or the Forest Preserve District purchases a developed parcel and intends to demolish the buildings, remove the driveways and convert the land surfaces to vegetation (even mowed turf grass), the extent of the permit submittals and review comments should be primarily limited to erosion prevention and sedimentation control.
If our long-term goal is to reduce the amount of existing impervious surfaces countywide, as the best way to reduce surface runoff and improve water quality, then pavement-to-turf conversion projects should be encouraged and possibly even incentivized in some manner. Should we consider even cost-sharing these types of projects with funds previously collected for fee-in-lieu-of detention?
Friday, February 5th 2010 at 11:04 am |
I agree that reduction in impervious surfaces holds the greatest promise for affecting a positive and landscape scale impact on water quantity and quality. The allowable uses of Fee-in-lieu moneys is absolutley going to be a discussion point, and you raise an interesting possibility.
Friday, April 9th 2010 at 12:28 pm |
Consideration should be given to including a special classification for pollution control faciltiies. Typically there is not enough room to incorporate detention, BMP’s or water quality control volume WQCV. These locations being in or very near the floodplains is also problematic.