What are your comments and concerns with regard to “process” in the Ordinance as it is right now.  Examples of the types opf “process” we are asking about are:

• Putting together an application
• Review Procedures, including the procedures of shared review between a Municipality and the County for Partial Waiver Communities
• Inspections
• Reports post construction, including closing out a permit
• Variances
• Enforcement
• Complaints

We have heard already comments such as “It takes too long”; “it costs too much”; “it requires too many submittals”.  It would help us immensely if you could be a bit more specific, and include any examples of “process” that you believe works well.

Our community has a large number of single family nomes in the floodplain. Most of these homes were built before 1970, and are small by today’s standards. Some have old garages which are in poor condition and need to be replaced, and some have no garage at all. Residents have not been able to build garages because the current ordinance requires the garage floor to be elevated to the flood elevation plus 1 foot, which is then impossible to get a car into. FEMA and the State of Illinois allow garages to be built at grade, as long as building materials are waterproof and there are flood vents. A 2 car garage would need 2 flood vents with openings roughly 12″ x 12″ in size. Residents may be in the floodplain, but they still would like and NEED a place to park their cars and store things like kids’ bikes and toys, lawn care equipment, tools, etc. People who don’t have a garage still own these things, and now they are stored outside. The items will be damaged either way in a flood, but in the flood vented garage the items are contained instead of floating loose down the stream in a flood. Concerns have been voiced that owners of a flood vented garage would close up the openings. This can be dealt with by requiring periodic inspections and issuing citations if necessary. It’s unfair to property owners to prohibit these structures because a few owners may block the vents. Please consider allowing flood vented garages (and sheds) in the floodplain in the revised ordinance. This would also serve to encourage owners to invest in replacing old, small homes in poor condition with modernized, elevated, protected structures–a benefit to the property owner and the community.

The link to the memorandum below summarizes the initial proposed revisions to the floodplain/floodway portion of the Ordinance. The points included have been the main topics of discussion at the Floodplain/Floodway Sub-Committee meetings.

If you have the opportunity, please provide us with your thoughts on this issue.

Floodplain/Floodway Proposed Revisions

We have provided revisions of the wetland and buffer sections of the ordinance to the subcommittee members for review.  A main remaining issue within this draft is regarding riparian areas.  This draft provides protection under the buffer section to areas that would have previously been protected under the riparian section of the current ordinance. Additionally, this version proposes a maxim width of the linear buffers of 50’, whereas the previous ordinance only limited the riparian width to the width of the flood plain.  There has been much discussion on this issue of width and the group is looking for feedback to work towards a consensus.  The questions is whether to leave the width as determined under the current Ordinance, or set a maximum width as currently written.  Though it is possible that a different maximum width could be used.  Or to have maximum widths based on the tributary area, a sliding scale.  If you have the opportunity, please provide us with your thoughts on this issue.

While the Steering Committee is not in consensus yet on all issues, we are posting the most recent version of the draft changes regarding wetlands , riparian environments and buffers in order to let all see where the discussion is at now, and to participate through the review and comment process.

Draft Wetland Ordinance V5.3