Response to public comments so far…

We have received a number of comments in the “Public Comment” section of the website.  Before we start into the thick of the real drafting of the Ordinance Update, I want to respond and acknowledge the comments we have received, and to the extent I can let commenters know what is being done about the comment.  Rather than respond to each comment individually, we have “collapsed” similar comments into a single concern.

1. Comments on BMPs:  Volume credits should be provided for BMPs, permeable pavers should be encouraged, wetlands should be given credit for higher evapotranspiration and since they are more effective than dry ponds, guidance should be provided on soak away systems.  Response:  We are looking for all opportunities to properly credit the multiple benefits of BMPs as we proceed into Drafting Ordinance Update language.
2. Comments on Redevelopment:  Redevelopment exemptions are too difficult to achieve, they should be expanded and simplified. Redevelopment should be encouraged to avoid sprawl.  Response:  Requirements related to redevelopment are being re-thought, recognizing that redevelopment is something that current trends in water quality and stormwater management, as well as urban planning, would encourage.
3. Comments on Easements and Deed Restrictions:  The Ordinance should clearly state when and where BMP and SMA easements and deed restrictions are required for both public and private development sites, and, how they shall be recorded.  Response: Noted.
4. Comments on Restoration:  There should be a separate category for projects that are for restoration work.  Response:  We have come to recognize that restoration, along with a whole class of projects whose purpose is to improve the ecological health of the project site, should be treated differently.  Watch for work under the project category “Naturalization”, as the real purpose of that category is to respond to this comment.
5. Comments on CLOMR:  CLOMR requirement should be eliminated for BFE reductions when there is no floodway impact.  Response:  This will be considered in discussions on Floodplain/Floodway regulations.  The enabling legislation says we must be consistent with IDNR.
6. Comments on FEQ:  Consider alternatives to FEQ.  Response:  The required use of FEQ will be made clearer in the ordinance update.  As stated in the Watershed Plan, alternative models will be acceptable where appropriate.
7. Comments on restrictors:  Eliminate small diameter/small volume restrictors that are prone to failure and need constant maintenance.  Response:  While we will review this situation carefully, the ordinance has been in place a long time and several designs have come into common usage that do not seem to be the source of a lot of complaints.
8. Comments on Roadways:  Roadway procedures should be formalized.  Response:  We all agree, and we are looking closely at that.

As new comments are received, we will post additional responses.

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?

How much value is there in re-ordering and re-arranging the various Articles of the Ordinance?  In 1992 when the ordinance was new the most immediate questions were “How does administration of this thing work?” and “Will projects be “grandfathered” from this ordinance and reviewed/approved under the previous stormwater management ordinances?”   The answer to the first question has been with us for a while now and while the update to the ordinance may tweak some aspects, it is hardly new.  The answer to the second question has yet to be widely discussed, and may be much less of an issue this time around.  Arguably,  those two questions dominate the text in 5 of the first 8 articles of our current Ordinance.  We don’t really begin to specify submittal requirements until Article 11, 56-pages into the text.  On the positive side, those who work  in the Engineering/Legal/Development field in DuPage County frequently have gotten used to this system, and any sort of wholesale change in layout and format could cause concern for any number of reasons.  Should we work within the current Ordinance Text format and divisions,  or look at a re-ordering?  If reordering, who should the primary target audience be?