I have been working on a modification to the copy of the Christiansburg Town Charter (my copy even includes the 2010 Amended 2.01 concerning voting in November). This modification will provide bookmarks for every section and subsection of the Town Charter. Why? Because there are quite a few people who are reviewing this particular document who have asked for the various sections to be easier to find. Read the rest of this entry »
Well, the controversy really doesn’t seem to be about cell towers so much as what to do when it doesn’t come out until the Public Hearing that…oops…by the way, where the party wanting to put the cell tower doesn’t have enough space to make it consistent with the Town Code.
Maybe I’m weird (yeah…yeah..yeah…some of you are already convinced of that), but I would have thought that would have been at least vaguely mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting on this, or perhaps even at the time the Conditional Use Permit was applied for? Videos of these meetings are available at myvaresources.com.
At the next Planning Commission Meeting, this should be addressed again (unless the applicant pulls it) and then it would go before the Town Council at their next meeting.
Since the issue in question has to do with the setback requirements needing to be at least the height of the tower according to the Town Code when discussion had indicated that 30′ from street and 45′ from other buildings was adequate for a 150′ tower. (Maybe not when the Code specifies a setback that is at least the height of the tower.)
I figured I would just do a bit of research on the issue. Rather than go into all of the details here, I set up a .pdf file as a primer for anyone interested in learning more. There is a brief introduction, then a history that includes a review of Planning Commission and Town Council Meeting Minutes concerning all discussions involving cell towers. Then, I went into the Comprehensive Plan and the Town Code for specifics. This primer is available at the Special Sudies Page of myvaresources.com just click on the link “Citizen’s Cell Tower Primer”. (Look for more such documents in the future.)
The Town Code section gives all the information needed to devise a checklist to see if all of the necessary steps have been followed.
One solution that was presented by Planning Director, Randy Wingfield, was that the Town could simply change the Code. Huh? Say, do what?
Well, let’s think about that possibility for a moment. What if the Town changed the Code so that a 35′ setback was adequate. How many places are there in Christiansburg where someone owns property that they would like to make some money from. The companies who rent space for those towers pay pretty darned well. Of course, unless they change some other parts of the Code, only Agricultural and Industrial I & II properties would be possible locations. Since most of the Agricultural land has been scarfed up for developments, what little there is left is often surrounded by rather high density housing. As to the Industrial I & II locations, well gosh, they’re surrounded by residential areas too.
How many of you want to have a view that includes a closeup and personal perspective of a cell tower? Right now, they are talking about one property. Any discussion of changing the Town Codes could affect a lot of other properties. What happens to property values around such facilities? What about research concerning health and safety hazards? How will the required safety lighting affect you?
There are a lot of issues to be addressed that are mentioned in the .pdf file I setup. Not the least of these is a commitment to work on a regional approach to the installation of these structures so that there is a minimal negative impact. (A copy of this regional agreement is included in the text.)
Times are hard. People need money, the Town needs money. But we MUST think about the long term impacts of such decision on everyone, not just a few. The potential impact on property values, insurance, health, safety, and well being of citizens must be acknowledged during any decision-making process.
A few weeks ago, I noted that the Town of Christiansburg had finally posted all of Chapter 10 of the Town Code on the Town’s website. That was the only chapter of the code that I had found that was not posted in its entirety. I figured that maybe it was because things were being updated.
While the full document has been available at MyVAResources.com for over a year (including all 3 Articles), the Town had only posted Article I (Erosion and Sediment Control. Article II (Stormwater Management) and Article II (Illicit Discharge) were omitted from the Town’s website.
Once the Town loaded the missing sections, I decided to compare it to what I had received to see what changes had been made. There were absolutely NO changes to Articles II and III. Those had just been omitted from the website for months with no apparent reason.
There were, however, a few changes found in Article I which had been previously posted but has now been reposted with those changes included. It appears that some of those changes may have been related to the DCR report I have been writing about. In summary, here are the changes that I found:
Added:
Department means the Department of Conservation and Recreation
Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units.
Natural channel design concepts means the utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize an open conveyance system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys its bankfull storm event within its banks and allows larger flows to access its bankfull bench and its floodplain.
Peakflow rate means the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a particular location.
Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.
Person means any individual, partnership, form, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town, or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.
Program Authority means the Town of Christiansburg which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program that has been approved by the Board.
Runoff volume means the volume of water that runs off the land development project from a prescribed storm event.
Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family.
Water quality volume means the volume equal to the first one-half inch of runoff multiplied by the impervious surface of the land development project.
Added:
(f) In accordance with, §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, stream restoration and relocation projects that incorporate natural channel design concepts are not man-made channels and shall be exempted from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels.
(g) In accordance with §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, any land-disturbing activity that provides for stormwater management intended to address any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels if the practices are designed to (I) detain the water quality volume and to release it over 48 hours; (ii) detain and release over a 24-hour period the expected rainfall resulting from the one year, 24-hour storm; and (iii) reduce the allowable peak flow rate resulting from the 1.5, 2, and 10-year, 24-hour storms to a level that is less than or equal to the peak flow rate from the site assuming it was in good forested condition, achieved through multiplication of the forested peak flow rate by a reduction factor that is equal to the runoff volume from the site when it was in a good forested condition divided by the runoff volume from the site in its proposed condition, and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels.
Added:
(h) Variances: The plan-approving authority may waive or modify any of the standards that are deemed to be too restrictive for site conditions, by granting a variance. A variance may be granted under these conditions:
At the time of plan submission, an applicant may request a variance to become part of the approved erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant shall explain the reasons for requesting variances in writing. Specific variances which are allowed by the plan-approving authority shall be documented in the plan.
During construction, the person responsible for implementing the approved plan may request a variance in writing from the plan-approving authority. The plan-approving authority shall respond in writing either approving or disapproving such a request. If the plan-approving authority does not approve a variance within 10 days of receipt of the request, the request shall be considered to be disapproved. Following disapproval, the applicant may resubmit a variance request with additional documentation.
(I) In accordance with the procedure set forth by §10.1-563 (E) of the Code of Virginia, any person engaging in the creation and operation of wetland mitigation banks in multiple jurisdictions, which have been approved and are operated in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance, laws, or regulations for the establishment, use, and operation of mitigation banks, pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Marine Resources Commission, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may, at the option of that person, file general erosion and sediment control specifications for wetland mitigation banks annually with the Board for review and approval consistent with guidelines established by the Board.
Added:
(f) Inspection frequency shall be in accordance with 4VAC 50-30-60.
——————————————————-
Those are all of the changes that were made when Article I was updated, but as you will note, they were some fairly important issues. I have added links to the specific codes referenced so that you can look further into the issues if you wish.
The most significant issue all of this (DCR Corrective Action, updating of codes only when forced to) brings to me is one question. How common is this type of issue throughout the Town Code? What other areas are audited and by whom? If these types of changes were initiated by the State years ago and only now being applied (by force) to the Town of Christiansburg, what other issues have been treated the same way?
This disregard for keeping codes current that are so closely related to health, welfare, safety, property values, insurance rates, etc. is unacceptable. Reading the full document, it shows clearly exactly how impotent the Town Council is once a property has been rezoned. Virtually nothing can be done by way of enforcement of these ordinances without the willingness and action taken by the Town Manager. The Town Council has no control except to control the behavior or OR the identity of the Town Manager.
These changes are a least part of the ones that were voted on back in December as updating the ordinance following a DCR audit. It is nice to see that something has finally arrived to show what Town Council voted on at that meeting. But, I can’t help but wonder, given the pattern of behavior here, if there are not possibly other changes the Council voted on at that time that still haven’t seen the light of day.
The Town Manager of Christiansburg was heard to say that he had been told by the National Weather Service that Christiansburg recently suffered what was more than a 1000 year flood. 1000 year event classification per National Weather Service is 4 1/4″ in 3 hours is 1000 year storm; 6 1/2″ in 3 hours. First off, try to find any reference to a “thousand year flood”. You will find a few but these are floods where hundreds of acers are flooded. You will not find it a definition of this ‘concept’ anywhere online. A phone call to the National Weather Service will yield that there is no such set standard for inches of rainfall in a specific timeframe to determine flood events.
Wikipedia does have informtion on the 100 year flood: A one-hundred-year flood is calculated to be the level of flood water expected to be equaled or exceeded every 100 years on average. The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1% flood, since it is a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. Based on the expected flood water level, a predicted area of inundation can be mapped out. This floodplain map figures very importantly in building permits, environmental regulations, and flood insurance.
First, let me point out a few little details that the Town Manager may want to check out:
1. the National Flood Insurance Program has copies of current flood plain maps available online. More of that nasty Freedom of Information, Empowering Citizens junk:) Just looking at the section in Cambria, if this most recent rainfall would have met the criteria for a 100 year (much less than a 1000 year flood) businesses on both sides of Crab Creek along Cambria and Depot Streets would have been flooded, including some of those on the far side of Depot. The railroad tracks would have been underwater. All of those areas on the opposite side of the track from the Depot would have been underwater.
2.A Public Information Statement from the National Weather Service in Blacksburg VA notes unofficial precipitation totals for a 15 hour period ending at 8 AM Friday and shows the Christiansburg level at 2.37″. Having been in the Cambria area, I would argue that it was closer to a 4″ rainfall there, and there was one report of over six inches there from a source who had positioned a personal rainguage in a location where the level was compromised by flow from a roof.
3. A local Storm Report from National Weather Service Blacksburg, VA notes that there was a flash flood on North Franklin Street at Spradlin Farms that closed the road due to high water reaching a depth of 3 feet. Road was re-oped around 4:00 AM (What creeks are there in Spradlin Farm area? Shouldn’t that be high and dry if storm water management is adequate?)
4. At 2:40 AM the National Weather Service Blacksburg, VA released a flash flood advisory reporting flash flooding all across the town. (Flooding should be the result of water having no place to go. If there is more water trying to go into the same location, a phenomenon that occurs when you significantly increase the amount of impervious surface without upgrading stormwater management features to accomodate that flow.)
5. Also at 2:40 AM several basements reported flooded in various locations across town.
I spent part of today out taking more photos of damage in Cambria and in other areas. Those photos will be loaded on online in the next few days. They are currently enroute to storage. Those photos clearly show that the elevation of the railroad track is higher than either the Cambria Emporium or the Depot and the buildings on the other side of Crab Creek.
It should further be noted that the large grassy areas which are at a lower elevation that the Cambria Emporium or the Depot but are on the opposite side of the track are untouched by water flow or debris. In full investigative mode, I wandered down the track looking and taking photos on both sides. No evidence of flooding was found on the Creek side of the railroad tracks. However, there is extensive evidence to indicate that water running downhill from properties on the otherside of the track pushed debris up to the very edge of the track. A lot of debris flowed down a channel along side the track headed straight for….yep you guessed the Cambria Depot and Emporium, which ironically (NOT) did get flooded.
I’ll be loading the audio of today’s PC meeting in a bit but I was in another meeting with the camera so I only have partial videos of that meeting. The audio fortunately caught something I would have missed. A citizen asking for a rezoning to allow a used carlot, uphill from the depot and the train track, which will include a newly paved area for the cars to be parked upon.
The owner of the property noted that he had some problems with water running off of Depot St. onto his property but that the town had a drain there and that took care of it, pretty much. But, in the past 2 years he did add two drains of his own to keep his buildings from flooding. Those drains run downhill and drop off the slope at the tracks……(at about the same place I found where part of the slope had been washed away, several large limbs had been washed down, oh, and a large black cable that runs between two large wooden poles has been pulled down and is now tangled in the debris. Wanna bet the next good rain takes out that power line?
Walking down the track shows a clear path of water running down the track headed to Cambria Street. Debris is pushed up onto the track, maybe a train derailment in the future?
What in the heck is it going to take for these guys to get a clue and realize that it is stormwater management that is the issue? The Town needs to have professionals come in to look at these. (I have a nightvision feature on my camera and I can’t wait to see what the shots from the grates down inside those drains show:)
Back to processing audio and video recordings:) Got some more photo albums to put together on stormwater. Keep checking at http://myvaresources.com for updates of existing and new photo albums.
Mr. Terpenny, you might want to get those comments from ‘specialists’ in writing to present to Town Council. It is probably just that you accidentally mispoke again, but that is so common, you really should take steps to help keep those mistakes from happening. If you come up with a document I can verify, I will be happy to post it on my website.
check out the highlighted link for the Stormwater Photo Gallery at http://myvaresources.com/
Let me know if you have photos you would like to include.
My compliments to the front line workers who tried to keep damage to a minimum. They displayed a high level of competence, customer service, and professionalism. Of course, they can only do what they are allowed to do.
Something that I expected someone to bring up at the recent Town Council meeting but wasn’t: Uh…at what times of the day and on what days will all of that construction equipment be operating? You see, the Town of Christiansburg doesn’t have a noise ordinance. There is nothing to prevent dump trucks from starting delivers at 6am on a bright sunny Saturday (or any other day) and go until 10pm or later on that or any other day. The only way to control that is through proffers by the developer. One of the roles of the planning dept. is to bring issues like this up to the developer. The developer then has an opportunity to agree to construction hours as part of the conditions/proffers associated with the development. So, if the planning dept. or town manager points this out as a possible issue, and if the developer deems it feasible to do so, arrangements can be made on any given development to keep the hours of construction reasonable for that environment. Is there such a consideration in the package before Town Council now?
Since there are so few (if any) places in Town any more where construction would not impact neighboring communities, isn’t it time for the Town to come up with some for of noise ordinance for this situation. A noise ordinance does not have to be so specific as to be too cumbersome. It could simply be related to construction noise not impinging on the regular family and sleep hours that most people try to enjoy.
For a full review of the history and some of the current applications of noise ordinances, check out ….yes…that favorite resource of mine: Wikipedia – Noise Regulation. A simple noise ordinance like this could make life better for those who have to live through the noise around them and for public officials who will be held accountable after the fact when something like this slips through the cracks.
By Carol Lindstrom On February 8 at 1:00 PM
A review of the Town of Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan yields exactly 16 references to sidewalks (in a 162 page document). The only one of those pertaining specifically to developments and the need for sidewalks in developments is number 15 below. Take a few minutes and look at some of these exerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and ask yourself: “How well has the Town of Christiansburg addressed the needs and desires of citizens in the development of the Comprehensive Plan? How much effort has the Town put into achieving the goals noted in the Comprehensive Plan?”
If you’ve been here a while, if you drive around town now and then, then consider printing out this list to see exactly what has been done towards achieving any of these goals. Take a read, take a look, and then form your own opinions. Feel free to share those opinions with me.
1. p.62. Outdoor Recreation Facilities: refers to sidewalks being used as an extension of the Huckleberry Trail as part of the N. Franklin Street -Peppers Ferry Road connector route.
2. p.62 Also notes that ‘The Town of Christiansburg maintains its sidewalk system, which is a continuing function (related to the College Street Downtown Trail constructed in 2002″.
3. p.62 “The Town sidewalk system supplements the Town trails.”
4. p.62 “While the Town’s trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, sidewalk pedestrian traffic is heavy, particularly in the downtown area.”
5. p.77 “Scheduled to begin in 2007, the Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road project will four-lane the entire portion in Town and outside the corporate limits to Dominion Drive as well as provide sidewalks, landscaped medians, left and right turn lanes, two stormwater management facilities, crosswalks, and roadside landscaping.
6. p.77 “The Christiansburg Town Council adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to include a N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road NW western connector road in its Six-Year Plan. Though not funded at this time, the connector is a priority locally and will assist in the alleviation of traffic congestion on both heavily traveled commercial corridors. The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Preliminary engineering for the project has previously been conducted.”
7. p.78 “The Town has indicated that improvements to Radford Street are a long-term objective
including widening and the addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks.”
8. p.80. This is a refernce to the extension of the Huckleberry Trail again. (see p.62)
9. p.80 “The Town of Christiansburg maintains its sidewalk system, which covers a good deal of
the Town’s primary street frontage, particularly in the commercial districts. The Town sidewalk system supplements the Town trails. While the Town’s trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, sidewalk pedestrian traffic is heavy, particularly in the downtown area.”
10. p.105. “Sidewalks, parking and overall curb appeal will be highlighted for investment by the Town in the areas of publicly owned property in order to create more opportunities for pedestrian traffic in the
downtown.”
11. p.113. Re: Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road Project again — “The project will provide sidewalks, landscaped medians, turn lanes, two storm water management facilities, crosswalks, and roadside landscaping. Implications of these road improvements include improved circulation within the Town limits as well as opportunities for further growth.”
12. p.113. Re: N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road Western Connector Route Project again — “The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks.”
13. p. 113. Re: Radford Street Improvements — “The Town has indicated that improvements to Radford Street are a long-term objective including widening and the addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks.”
14. p.124. “TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal: Provide for a system of streets, sidewalks, parking areas, traffic controls and other related facilities, which will provide safe, convenient and reliable movement of people and goods.”
15. p.136 “j. Explore the creation of a fund that would allow developers to make contributions in lieu of building a sidewalk in front of properties that do not provide connectivity. This fund could then be used to rehabilitate existing sidewalks or extend existing sidewalks into appropriate areas.“
16. p.131. “d. Build sidewalks or multi-use paths to public sites including parks and recreation centers.“
By Carol Lindstrom On February 6 at 9:30 PM
New River News A Tale of Two Burgs New River Journal Blog Washington Post: The Answer Sheet (Education) Roanoke Times Round Table Blog
