What the Consulting Team believes to be the last of the changes from States Attorney Review are now complete.  Rather than post a whole new Ordinance version with these changes at this time, we have excerpted the affected sections from Ordinance Version 3.1 (the most recent posted) and the changes are in underline/strikeout mode.  These changes with a couple other scribers errors will be incorporated in a version 3.2, which we intend to post late tomorrow in case anyone notices anything we have missed.  The sections affected by these changes are 15-47.B,  15-54, 15-55, and 15-104.  The changes to 15-47 clarify that an informational note recorded against the title is required for Wetlands, Floodplains, Buffers and PCBMPs which drain more than 1-acre.  The changes to 15-54 and 15-55 are in response to community comments on easements and performance securities.  The changes to 15-104 are some clarifying editing.

State’s Attorney Review

Performance Security 15-54 revisions from Version 3.1

The County and the MEG (Municipal Engineers Group) have finalized drafts of the first 12 General Certifications.  The Ordinance rewrite has contemplated all along that General Certifications would be developed to make getting permits for common and routine projects easier and less expensive.  These 12 General Certifications are expected to be put on the same schedule as adopting the revised Ordinance, so these are being brought to the Stormwater Committee for consideration on March 6.

Accesory Structures

Boardwalk

Boat Lifts and Piers

Decks

Demo of Structure

Posts Fencing and Guard Rails

Recreational Facilities

Sidewalks Trails Patios and Driveway

Storm sewer outfalls

Streambank

Topsoil and Sand Restoration

Underground Overhead Utilities

Since version 3.0 of the Ordinance was posted last week, a few minor corrections were found and made.  In addition, all of the appendices have been added for review.  Of particular note are the following sections with changes: 15-85, 15-86 and 15-94, and the performance standards in Appendix B.      All changes made between the version posted last week, version 3.0, and this version 3.1 appear in underline/strikeout mode and should be easy to find.  We are still working with the States Attorney to finalize the language in sections 15-54 and 15-55.   As soon as these are available they will be posted.  At this time, unless we receive comments from others, we do not anticipate that there will be additional changes other than to sections 15-54 and 15-55 as noted.

Draft Ordinance Version 3.1

In an effort to give everyone as much time as possible to review the Newest draft of the Stormwater Ordinance, we are posting up today a draft of Version 3.0, along with a redline compare of Version 3.0 to the version out for the last public comment, Version 2.4.  These documents are available through the links below. There are still a few sections that are being worked on by the States Attorney, mostly in Article 6 regarding easements, informational notes against titles, and the chain of maintenance responsibility.  This version also does not include the watershed planning boundary map or the fee schedule, but as previously noted these will not change from what is in the current Ordinance.  We are continuing to do cross-reference and formatting checks, and proofing the language.  If you see something you would like us to note or that needs to be fixed, please feel free to e-mail Dave Winklebleck at the County.  We appreciate your patience as we work through all of the very complex issues that the rewrite must cover, and look forward to posting a finalized Version 3 very soon.

Draft Version 3.0

Draft Version Compared 3.0 to Version 2.4

In follow-up discussions with County Board Members and County staff, and further review and input on the next draft of the Ordinance from the States Attorney, some new direction was developed regarding the next draft of the ordinance to be presented to the committee in March, compared to the responses offered in the latest comment response document.  The following is a quick summary of the differences from what is indicated in the comment Response document on the second draft.

• Wetlands.  Non-corps jurisdictional wetlands, whose size is less than 0.1 acres, and which are non-critical, may be impacted without an alternatives analysis and without mitigation as long as:   the aggregate impact to wetlands is less than 0.1 acres for the development; no wetland being impacted is greater than 0.1 acres in size.
• PCBMP and VCBMP fee-in-lieu.  The exceptions and exclusions have been better organized to make it easier to follow.  Fee-in-lieu will be allowed for any development that the Administrator or Director finds it “impractical” to construct the BMPs on-site.  This will not be contingent on the amount of impervious or the size of the site, or the land use. This language is similar to what is in the current Ordinance, and is a more expansive use of Fee-in-lieu than what is in the current draft.  The test of “impractical” does not have a hard definition, so sound rational and consistency will be required when it is applied.  For VCBMP, the fee-in-lieu will be $500/1000 sq. ft. of net new impervious area.
• A number of the issues that were deferred to the States Attorney have now come back with more detail.  These will be summarized in subsequent posts prior to release of the new Ordinance draft in March.

The attached updated Economic Impact Study comparison was made available today to the Stormwater Committee.  The updates reflect the consulting team’s second comment responses.

Economic Impact Study Comparison