Such a process could help land owners correct violations or improve degraded habitats sooner and with less cost.

Ordinance related:

- Eliminate the CLOMR requirement for BFE reductions on no impact to the floodway, particularly for acceptable uses. This requirement has made some property owner decide not to do things that would reduce BFE for fear of the CLOMR-LOMR process and associated delay.

A study in North Carolina (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08172007-180633/unrestricted/etd.pdf, pp. 56-58) found approximately 60% removal of both TSS and Total Phosphorus for ½” rainfall depth, 70% for ¾” and 80% for 1”. The effect of doubling the required volume for an additional 20% removal benefiting only 20% of the rainfall events does not make good economic sense. Also, it is noted that Wisconsin requires an 80% TSS removal rate for new development and 40% for redevelopment. Therefore, a selection of a flat ½” rainfall depth (60% removal rate) would also be in-line with our neighboring state.

The first flush volume should be considered as part of the required detention volume in order to prevent an additional regulatory burden on the property owners.

There should be a lenient fee-in-lieu variation process (i.e. administrative) to accommodate properties where accommodating this first flush volume is either not possible or desired. The funds would be used similar to the detention fee program wherein the funds are retained by the community and restricted to qualified expenditures.

It does not appear that the pavement throughout was milled prior to resurfacing.

It may have been selectively milled at the main entrance to the store to provide a smooth transition to the ramped sidewalk.

Please be aware that they have raised the parking lot elevations from those originally approved.

This is evidenced by reduce landscape island curb heights throughout the site.

Typical curb height should be around 6 inches, those on site in some areas are less than 3 inches.

Wouldn’t this make the exsiting retention inadequate.

This surely has a significant impact on local area flooding.

Harold C. "Sandy" Menger
3S236 Sequoia Drive
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Cell: (630)417-7283
Res: (630)858-7283

1. Consider volume of release in developed condition and provide minimum release volume threshold. I.E., eliminate small diameter/small volume restrictors that are prone to constant maintenance and failure.

2. Promote wetland banking on County public lands where land component has been purchased by taxpayers.

Specific rules for maintenance can be justified. For example, if maintenance disturbs less than one acre, then only soil erosion and sedimentation controls are necessary. If over an acre is disturbed then applicable ILR 10 rules apply.

Mayors and managers want to know how these general gripes can be addressed/impacted by the suggested ordinance changes, if at all. Is there a way to quantify how the revised ordinance will impact policy change? Can there be a default to permit approval if ordinance set review periods are exceeded?

Section 60.3c5 of Title 44 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (NFIP) addresses areas usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding. It requires at least two one-square-inch openings per square foot floor area below the BFE to comply. Technical Bulletin 1 by FEMA provides guidance for this construction. This is sufficient regulation.

The purposes of the Ordinance listed in Section 15-4 do not call for the elimination of flood damage, only reducing the risk and lessening taxpayer burden. There is no proof that damaged accessory structures have posed a danger, threatened the environment or caused financial hardship to the general public in DuPage County. Restrictions of garages in flood fringe beyond federal guidelines do hinder flood–sensitive reinvestment in property by many individuals.

The arguments that these accessory spaces will somehow become habitable are not persuasive. Most detached garages and sheds are in single family residential zoning districts where separate living units are prohibited by municipal code.

The proposed methods to ensure stored materials will not contaminate flood waters are excessive. A recorded covenant and an access easement for inspection provide sufficient tools for local enforcement. Additional restrictions should be at the option of the waiver community.

Section 10.3.2 references section 10.2.1.2. Should it reference 10.2.1.3. Instead?

Bill Salzbrunn – 7-630-739-7477

Also, I would recommend that all road-side ditches (even if meeting all three wetland criteria) be exempt from any stormwater/wetland ordinance regulations. I believe that these areas are clearly man-made situations and therefore should not be regulated as a special management area.

1. Not all riparian habitat is associated with wetlands. Many of the more channelized streams do not have wetlands associated with their banks due to the steepness of the bank. Riparian habitat associated with streams/creeks that do not have wetland fringe would not be protected if the proposed changes are made.

2. Riparian habitats provide a number of different functions, from wildlife habitat to water quality improvements. Removing protection for riparian habitat will result in the loss of stormwater velocity attenuation, stormwater runoff volume attenuation, sediment control, erosion control, and the filtering of stormwater contaminants.

3. DuPage County’s stormwater management system is permitted by the IEPA’s NPDES MS4 permit (ILR40). The new permit that was issued Feb 20, 2009 requires DuPage County to… develop and implement strategies… that will reduce the discharge of pollutants, the volume and velocity of storm water flow to the maximum intent practicable…. The permittee should require the person responsible for that activity to adopt one or more of these strategies, in order of preference…

i. preservation of the natural features of development sites, including natural storage and infiltration characteristics;
ii. preservation of existing natural streams, channels, and drainage ways;…

(Part IV; B. Minimal Control Measures; 5 (b))

Drawing a 50-foot buffer line from the OHWM will prove difficult on many sites because such ‘marks’ are often difficult or impossible to find. And they can be easily disputed. A flood plain line is usually more accurate and defensible.

Water does not follow buffer lines but does follow elevations. The purpose of the proposed change is not understood.

This seems unfair to consultants that just do occasional delineations here. On the other hand, these "outside" consultants seem to have extreme difficulty preparing tab 4 submittals. Perhaps the focus should be elsewhere.

Consideration should be given to allowing the Administrators flexibility to waive this requirement for other government agencies such as Park Districts, School Districts and the Forest Preserve District.

The benefits of allowing for permit certification outside the County would be multiple:

1) Burden on County staff would be reduced.
2) Cities and Villages that do not want to take on additional staff to become full waiver Communities would still see benefits in permit review times.
3) The County could audit permits to ensure standards were being met and the reviewers do not abuse the trust placed in them.
4) Developers could mitigate risk by having a County certified reviewer early in the design process.
5) Prescriptive check sheets could be developed which would provide a guide to both designer and certified reviewers to mitigate risk.
6) The County would only have to allow permit self certification for the review categories that it felt comfortable doing so.
7) The County could allow self certification to the extent that it felt comfortable, i.e. Demo Permits, Grading Permits, Foundation Permits, Full Stormwater Management Permit, etc…..
The County already sends certain projects out for review by consultants, so to create a self certification or 3rd party permit certification process would not be stretch from current practices.
9) Self Certified or 3rd Party Certification would be a voluntary decision, so if some felt the fee was too high, or they were uncomfortable with process, they would still have the government option.
10) The option can be passed as Ordinance or made into a policy depending on whatever option suits the County.

The soil scientist requirement does not explain why a soil scientist is needed. If it is for reviewing wetland delineations, the reviewer only needs experience with the ACOE manual. The requirement to retain a soil scientist should be justified, or removed from the Ordinance.

"Any person proposing a development shall obtain a Stormwater Management Certification, or be covered by a general certification or if applicable obtain a letter of permission unless the development meets the following criteria."

Does this mean that the development needs to meet the criteria listed in both 15-31.A.1 and A.2 or is it only one of the criteria needs to be met?

If this approach is acceptable, then it should be a part of the Stormwater Ordinance

Consideration should be given to allowing the Administrators flexibility to waive this requirement for other government agencies such as Park Districts, School Districts and the Forest Preserve District.

The benefits of allowing for permit certification outside the County would be multiple:

1) Burden on County staff would be reduced.
2) Cities and Villages that do not want to take on additional staff to become full waiver Communities would still see benefits in permit review times.
3) The County could audit permits to ensure standards were being met and the reviewers do not abuse the trust placed in them.
4) Developers could mitigate risk by having a County certified reviewer early in the design process.
5) Prescriptive check sheets could be developed which would provide a guide to both designer and certified reviewers to mitigate risk.
6) The County would only have to allow permit self certification for the review categories that it felt comfortable doing so.
7) The County could allow self certification to the extent that it felt comfortable, i.e. Demo Permits, Grading Permits, Foundation Permits, Full Stormwater Management Permit, etc…..
The County already sends certain projects out for review by consultants, so to create a self certification or 3rd party permit certification process would not be stretch from current practices.
9) Self Certified or 3rd Party Certification would be a voluntary decision, so if some felt the fee was too high, or they were uncomfortable with process, they would still have the government option.
10) The option can be passed as Ordinance or made into a policy depending on whatever option suits the County.

The soil scientist requirement does not explain why a soil scientist is needed. If it is for reviewing wetland delineations, the reviewer only needs experience with the ACOE manual. The requirement to retain a soil scientist should be justified, or removed from the Ordinance.

"Any person proposing a development shall obtain a Stormwater Management Certification, or be covered by a general certification or if applicable obtain a letter of permission unless the development meets the following criteria."

Does this mean that the development needs to meet the criteria listed in both 15-31.A.1 and A.2 or is it only one of the criteria needs to be met?

The language is a little ambiguous when it refers to the (unstated) requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, we suggest that “Nonconforming structures shall not be replaced or enlarged in any manner unless such replacements or enlargements conform to the requirements of this Ordinance or the applicable waiver community ordinance.” be replaced with “Nonconforming structures shall not undergo Substantial Improvement unless the entire structure is brought into compliance with the elevation and floodproofing requirements of this Ordinance or the applicable waiver community ordinance”.

Although the issue of accessory structures in the flood plain affects one community more than others, all communities have to deal with isolated, 12” deep flood plains in rear yards. (BTW, IMHO, attached garages should not be considered accessory structures as they are part of the house. An attached garage that touches the flood plain brings the entire house into the flood plain).

County staff indicated that they were sympathetic to the argument, but the only way they could permit a garage in the flood plain without elevation and compensatory storage, under the current ordinance, was to have a structure without walls up to one foot above the BFE. The opening could be covered with chain link fence or other grating that had at least 50% open space in order to keep out the local fauna. This would create a strange looking garage, but would provide some relief to homeowners with a need to store lawnmowers and bicycles in a safe place each night; until this issue could be addressed in the new ordinance.

Most of the municipal engineers who spoke on the subject expressed little concern about garage flooding, as it is permitted under the National Flood Insurance Program. Of course, certain standards should be required. The structure should be constructed of waterproof materials up to one foot above the BFE. All electrical boxes and wire splices should be at least one foot above the BFE (which will make the garage safer than then the municipality’s streetlights and traffic signals in the flood plain). Stored materials (gasoline, paint, fertilizer, etc.) should also be elevated by installing shelves one foot above the BFE.

I’ve only heard two reasons for requiring the elevation of garages from County staff. First is the concern that someone will, in the future, remodel a garage to include a bedroom, thus making the garage into a habitable structure below the BFE. Municipalities have zoning and building codes that restrict the use of accessory structures as living space, and they also have pretty good building inspectors and code enforcement people to prevent this type of activity. The second reason is to prevent flood damage to items stored below the BFE. If flood insurance does not cover materials stored below the BFE on the ground outside your house, it probably is not going to cover materials stored below the BFE in the garage either.

In conclusion, the requirement to elevate garage floors to the BFE is onerous and, because of the impracticality of providing sufficient compensatory storage on a residential lot, is a de facto prohibition of garages. This imposes an unnecessary hardship on many DuPage County residents.

New roadways usually involve the creation of new impervious surfaces, so the requirements for stormwater detention and water control volumes make sense. When constructing a new roadway, there is usually an opportunity to fit a small, longitudinal storage facility in the parkway adjacent to the pavement.

Expanding the footprint of an existing roadway usually involves adding one or more lanes to accommodate higher traffic volumes. We assume that the stormwater detention and water control volumes would only apply to the widening and not to the existing portion of the roadway (which will usually be resurfaced). If this assumption is correct, it should be spelled out in Article 9.2.

Reconstruction of an existing roadway in the same footprint creates no additional impervious area and has no negative impact on water quality or runoff quantity. This activity should be treated the same as resurfacing, i.e. it should be treated as a maintenance project. Just as it is in the draft Cook County ordinance, the Lake County ordinance and the Will County ordinance. We do not need to be more restrictive on water storage requirements for pavement maintenance projects than all of our neighbors. Under the draft language, most communities would leave one inch of aggregate base course in place so that their project would not meet the definition of a Roadway Project.

In a similar vein, replacement of underground utilities should also be treated as a maintenance activity, with only temporary (no permanent) impacts. Just as it is being treated by our neighbors. It is understood that soil erosion and sedimentation control measures should be required; but requiring detention or water volume control based on disturbed area does not make sense for utility replacement.

Major watershed is not defined in the ordinance. The Illinois River watershed is a major watershed and we will certainly not be bigger than 5% of that.

Sub watershed is not defined in the ordinance. The rear yards of my house and my three neighbors constitute a sub watershed. I am over 20% of that. So, a residential lot in a small block would not be a Minor Project but one in a large block would be?

Article 7.2.11.1.3 allows the use of silt fence with woven wire reinforcement to intercept runoff from disturbed areas greater than one acre. The current ordinance allows its use for disturbed areas less than one acre. We do not want to try to capture runoff from 20 acres with silt fence, even if it has woven wire reinforcement.

Article 7.2.17 is unnecessary, as it is redundant with 7.2.22.

Article 7.2.19 requires channel stabilization for runoff velocities in excess of four feet per second. The current ordinance refers to runoff from a 25-year storm event. This is a good change as it removes any potential “creativity” in calculating the runoff velocity from a 25-year storm.

The current ordinance requires trenches and holes to be backfilled at the end of each work day. This has been deleted from the draft ordinance. For large construction projects, it is often unfeasible to fill in the excavation at the end of each day. The risk of downstream sedimentation is actually increased by backfilling. An open excavation provides an overnight sediment basin.

The reference to Appendix E has been deleted. Although the Technical Guidance is woefully out of date, it is still a handy reference for useful information and I will continue to use it.

In Article 8.1.3.1.2, “redevelopment” and “in-fill development” have less stringent TSS removal requirements, but the terms are not defined. Without a definition, municipal staff will make their own interpretations of what is or is not a redevelopment or in-fill development. (If a site is razed and a new building is proposed by a different owner five years later, is this still a redevelopment? If there are two empty residential lots next to each other on a street with 20 lots, are they both still infill lots? What if the two corner lots are built: are the middle 18 lots all infill lots?)

Article 8.1.3.5 prohibits Water Control Volume facilities from accepting runoff from areas within 100 feet of a private well if the area is commercial, industrial or institutional. Why? We assume that public right-of-way is not institutional, as there are thousands of private wells adjacent to public rights-of-way in DuPage County.

Will the negotiated fee in lieu amount referred to in Article 8.1.3.7.3 be based on the current Schedule B amounts? Is the purpose of this article to allow for partial credit for BMPs that remove some but not all of the required TSS?

Article 9.3.3.2 requires detention facilities in the flood plain to store the required site runoff under all stream flow and backwater conditions, up to the BFE. Unless a site is near the headwaters of a stream or river, there will be a lag between the time to fill the basin and the time it takes for the waterway to reach peak stage. This section should not preclude a designer from using dynamic modeling to show that most of his runoff is gone by the time the river comes up. Maybe this is allowed by the ordinance language, but it just didn’t seem clear to me.

Article 9.4.2.3 states that the WCV drawdown has to be at least 48 hours. Article 9.4.2.5 states that an underdrain may be added if the soils do not drawdown in less than 48 hours. I think the drawdown needs to be more than 48 hours, so 9.4.2.5 should state that an underdrain can be added as long as the drawdown is still more than 48 hours.

Article 10.2.1.3.2.1 allows fill in the flood plain for 12-foot wide (or less) at-grade pedestrian paths in the floodway, as long as there is “a balance of cut and fill at each cross section. Net cut over the length of a project is acceptable where a balance of cut and fill at every cross-section cannot be achieved”. Therefore, at-grade pedestrian paths in the floodway must provide only 100% compensatory storage for all fill. The portions of at-grade pedestrian paths in the flood plain, but outside the floodway limits, must provide 150% compensatory storage for all fill. All channel modification projects must provide 100% compensatory storage for all fill (see Article 10.2.4.3). All streambank stabilization projects must provide 100% compensatory storage for all fill (see Article 10.3.4.4).All other projects in the flood plain must provide 150% compensatory storage for all fill. Why can’t at-grade pedestrian paths in the floodway, streambank stabilization projects and channel modification projects be required to provide 150% compensatory storage for all fill like everyone else?

In Article 10.2.4.1, change “or other materials above grade in the flood plain” to “or other materials above grade in riverine flood plain”. This will help clarify that incremental compensatory storage is required in riverine flood plain, but is no longer required in depressional flood plain.

Why were runways and taxiways added to Article 10.3.1.6? Who has an airport in the floodway? Is that a good idea?

In Article 10.3.4.1, “should” should be replaced with “shall”. “Should” is seldom a good word to use in an ordinance.

Article 10.3.4.5 states “Projects replacing an existing culvert with a culvert of identical size and material will not require the use of an FEQ model”. I should hope not for a maintenance project that will not change the flood profile. However, a change in material should be permitted under this exemption as long as the pipe’s roughness coefficient is being reduced. Municipal public works departments have been frustrated in the past by County staff’s unwillingness to allow the replacement of rusted out CMP culverts with new RCP culverts unless the flood profiles were remodeled. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on an FEQ study and spending months and months on County review; municipalities have replaced the CMP culverts with new CMP culverts. So, we will be back in 15 years again, digging up the road again, pushing another load of silt down the river again, just so the County does not have an undocumented, small reduction in the flood profile. This makes little sense.

In Article 10.3.7, for bridge and culvert replacements within the regulatory floodway, no floodway analysis shall be required provided that the pre- and post-construction BFE is unchanged. (What if it is slightly lowered? See the 10.3.4.5 rant above). How can it be determined that the pre- and post-construction BFE is unchanged without undertaking a floodway analysis?

Under Article 10.3.8, how are IDNR-OWR Regional Permits (that do not require a permit application) handled?

In Article 10.3.8.4, the term “public bodies of water” is not defined. The intent is not clear.

And finally (I know, I know….sorry), the definition for Special Management Areas still refers to “riparian areas” and “wetland buffers”. Should these not be replaced with “buffers”?

David Krecek
General Manager
Danleys Garage World