RSS

Tag Archives: commission

So much for campaign issues — The Post Election Mutation Process

14 Aug

Sidewalks were a significant part of the discussion prior to the May 4th Town of Christiansburg elections. The results of the Planning Commissions assignment to evaluate the proposed plan comes to the forefront on Monday, August 16, at 7:00 p.m. when the public is invited to participate and present their input. Thus far, the meetings where the discussions on this item received input from those few who showed up at the Planning Commission Meetings. Most of those people were developers. A common theme developed early in the process.

  • These are hard economic times and to raise the costs to developers (which would be passed on to the consumer) were not needed and would, in effect, be a ‘tax’.

Sidewalks, the absence of and the degradation of existing ones have long been topics with citizens and government. What started as a general discussion on a possible ordinance change requiring sidewalks in residential areas went through a series of transmutations that have let us with what will be presented to the public at this meeting. Although not available on the town’s website for quick and easy citizen access, I have been getting copies at each step along the way, and I am providing what I believe to be the most recent copy of the proposed amendment here. Note: this addresses Chapter 26 Subdivisions and Chapter 30 Zoning.

Within Chapter 26 Subdivisions, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

  • Sec. 26-7. Generally (d), (1) Dedications: added the phrase: Subdividers choosing the compact development option as detailed in Chapter 30 “Zoning” shall not be compensated for dedications exceeding ten percent.

Within Chapter 30 Zoning, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

  • Sec. 20-1. Definitions: Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas with the exception of driveways and parking areas strictly for community buildings, picnic shelters, ball fields, trails, pools, and similar common use amenities located within the open space.
  • Article VII. Residential Manufactured Home Subdivision District R-MS, Sec. 30-63 Yards.: Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-63; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. 2007-1 of 4-3-07)
  • Article XXII. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec. 30-200. Compact development option. (This whole section was added. Use the link to go to the document to see it in detail. Essentially, it is a voluntary option that allows developers to obtain higher density in exchange for providing sidewalks/trails in R-1A, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts and MU-1 and MU-2 Mixed Use Districts. It specifically excludes any single-family residential and two-family residential development on existing public streets..)

You will note that rather than a Town-wide approach to requiring sidewalks in residential areas, it has become an isolated optional application for certain Zoning designations.

From the Feb. 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes Item 3 in Discussions (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_02_02TC/2010_02_2TC4.html):

  • SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.  Councilman Showalter encouraged fellow Councilmembers to support adopting an ordinance that would require developers to place sidewalks in medium to high density subdivisions.  Councilman Stipes said he supports this as a requirement for all three residential zoning districts.  Councilman Barber commented that lack of sidewalks in Town is a common complaint of citizens and he would like to see this action taken immediately.  Councilman Vanhoozier suggested forming a committee to review the matter since it will require a change to Town ordinance.  Mayor Ballengee turned this matter over to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council within three months.

From the March 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes:http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_02TC/2010_03_2TC2.html

  • Mr. Craig Moore, Planning Commission Chairman, to address Council regarding open space and sidewalk requirements.  Mr. Craig Moore asked Town Council to clarify its direction that the Planning Commission review open space and sidewalk requirements (see Town Council Minutes of 2/16/10).  Per Mr. Moore, the Planning Commission is unclear as to whether the Town Council wants the Commission to study if open space and sidewalk requirements should be modified; or does Town Council want the open space and sidewalk requirements modified and it want the Planning Commission to focus on design standards.  If the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on design standards, then the time involvement will be greater than three months.  Some of the areas that would need to be studied for a design plan for sidewalks are:  Cost, drainage, curb/gutter, maintenance, ditches, environmental impact, connectivity, and safety.  Minimum requirement threshold and usage would need to be studied for open space modification.  Mayor Ballengee, noting that Town Council needs to give the Planning Commission perimeters for review, turned to Councilman Showalter for comment.  Councilman Showalter suggested Town Council have a work session to review VDOT’s minimum standards on these issues as a starting point.  The Planning Commission would be involved with this work session.  A work session date of March 23, 2010 was determined by Council, with a time to be announced at a later date.

March 16 Town Council Minutes Town Manager Report: (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_16TC/2010_03_16TC3.html)

  • TOWN MANAGER TERPENNY reported that a joint work session with the Planning Commission has been scheduled for March 23, 2010 from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., to review and discuss VDOT standards, sidewalks, and green/open space.

March 23, 2010 Town Council – Planning Commission Work Session on Sidewalk Ordinance, no citizen comments allowed. Includes Power Point Presentation.) (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_23TCWS/2010_03_23TCWS1.html) (3 parts). This set of videos holds the most information on what citizens have said and what has been seen in the neighborhoods. Even the Mayor indicated that he had clearly seen the need for sidewalks in his own neighborhood. And, the discussion was clearly concerning ALL residential developments. It was also pointed out that this ordinance could remove the ‘case-by-case’ application and create and even ‘playing field’. Currently a total of 4 miles of sidewalks exist with the boundaries of the town of 136 miles of roadway. This 4 miles includes those ‘crumbling sections of sidewalks in older areas of Town per the Town Manager. This was also the first time that ‘citizens might like this but developers not like it’ came up in any discussions and it was brought up by the Mayor. Additional discussion on green space indicated that some Council and Commission members felt that useable green space was key to any ordinance changes. The Town Manager advised that there are differences between green space, open space, and recreation space (either passive or active), but he did not provide definitions those terms. (Definitions found in Town Code follow) The discussion indicated some confusion as to what the State Code actually allowed and it was requested that more information be provided Council.

From the Christiansburg Town Code:

  • Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas.
  • Required open space. Any space required in any front, side or rear yard or as delineated on an approved site plan or otherwise specified in this chapter.
  • Greenspace. Area of non-impervious surfaces. Landscaping/landscaped areas may be counted toward greenspace.
  • Recreation space (active or passive) not found.

That is all of the Town Council input that has occurred in the public eye, PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, on this matter and expresses the intent of Council in referring this to the Planning Commission for review.

Unfortunately, there are no minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting so the agendas will have to suffice (augmented, of course by those videos which are available):

  • Feb. 22, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 3) Consideration of amendment to the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. (No video available of this meeting.)

Arguments against requiring sidewalks in all new residential developments have included:

  1. Almost all land is already developed. There are few places where such an ordinance would apply. (No discussion of how this would also affect future lands annexed by the Town.)
  2. It would be a hardship on developers because it would cost more.
  3. It would be a hardship on home buyers because the cost would increase. (That pretty much gets rid of the argument of costing developers more because the cost would be passed on to consumers. And, is recouped by the property owner through increased home value upon resale.)
  4. Since there are few sidewalks in existing areas, there is no need to provide ‘connections’ with new developments.
  5. Who would be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the sidewalks? Home owners or the Town?
  6. People do not use sidewalks now. (Yeah, it is a fairly common phenomenon that people do not use what does not exist.)
  7. Previously, the requirement in Commercial areas for sidewalks have not been fairly applied to all developers. Some did not have to do it and others did.
  8. Sidewalks being required for all is not appropriate where there are only one or a few lots in an area where there are no sidewalks. (This seems to have created the shift to new developments only.)
  9. VDOT does not hold jurisdiction over Christiansburg roadways and therefore VDOT criteria does not apply.
  10. Sidewalks could have a negative impact on on-street parking (which is allowed and encouraged throughout town – on-street parking is necessary where variances on setbacks provide for increased density of developments and more usable land for development).

At one point, it was mentioned that connectivity to existing sidewalks should be considered and a study to see exactly what sidewalks existed and where people are likely to go was suggested. Planning Director Wingfield noted that a document existed for this (developed YEARS ago) that already filled this purpose. (The concept of doing a current evaluation, including recent growth, died on the vine.) Very little of the discussion by the Planning Commission addresses the safety and well-being of citizens. Mostly, an audience driven discussion, the bulk of the focus was on the negative impact to developers.

This may or may not be an important issue to you. Regardless of your personal level of interest, this is certainly something that has a ‘community’ interest. Safe routes to school, the ability to be able to safely walk or ride a bike to key points within the community, saving a bit of gas money, exercising for your health (car dodging does NOT count as exercise), home values, the overall appearance of the town, impact on developers, and other issues abound. Why not take some time to look at one or more of these videos to see what is being discussed. Then come on out to the public meeting and express your views. In a community, every voice is important.



EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 14, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, VOTE, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

How is it that the Sage Lane issue ever came up?

14 Jul

Now that is a $1,000,000 plus question. (By the way, videos of the meeting are at: http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_07_12PC/2010_07_12PC1.html

Here are a few observations/questions about why this and many other development issues have come up. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 14, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

See the Ordinance change for the Floodplain Districts.

04 Aug

I finally got a chance to do a bit more work on the ‘myvaresources.com’ citizen webpage (home to all things Christiansburg related to government).

Along with a bit of a face lift (still working), you can find a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendment related to FloodPlain Districts that will be part of the Public Hearing on August 4th Town Council Meeting. There is also a video of the August 3rd Planning Commission Meeting (a good thing to watch if you ever want to apply for one of those positions.

I will keep working on this site and adding to it when I can find time. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of doing this is that I now have 5 web pages to manage (with a possible 6th coming soon) and they all pay the same … nothing. I have to try to earn a living in between the web work. These pages are not perfect and I always welcome suggestions for change. Please remember that I have only been doing this for a year now and have had no training in how to build and maintain websites. I know of a lot of mistakes that I found and corrected. There are probably that many more that I have not noticed yet. But, heck, it’s still not a bad deal since it is done for free:)

Hope to see you at the Town Council Meeting!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 4, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Christiansburg’s Most Wanted: Is a Planning Commissioner out there?

20 Jul

The July 15, 2009 issue of the Roanoke Times Current sports this ad:

Christiansburg Planning Commission

The Town of Christiansburg, Virginia is now accepting applications for candidates for the Christiansburg Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Town Council and makes recommendations on items such as rezoning requests, Conditional Use Permit requests, and amendments to Town Code. Planning Commission members are qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and development, are required to be Town residents, serve four year terms, and are compensated $25.00 per meeting attended. Planning Commission appointments are made by Town Council and will become effective immediately for the remainder of the vacant term.

The Town will accept cover letters, resumes, and applications until Friday July 31, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. at the Town Manager’s Office, Town Hall, 100 E. Main Street, Christiansburg, VA 24073. A Town of Christiansburg job application is required and may be obtained at the Town Municipal Building during normal office hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. EOE.

Okay now folks, here is an opportunity for you to have some say as to how things are going and growing in Christiansburg. Along with the recommendations mentioned above, there is one VERY IMPORTANT role that the Planning Commission members have … the Development and Review of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

Anyone have any idea why you have to go to Town Hall to pick up the application instead of applying on the website as for other positions? Seems like just another hurdle to reduce the number of applicants to me.

I will also note that minority groups are severely under represented on this Commission. Hopefully, this will be the opportunity for that to change. If there is anyone interested in applying and would like any assistance in getting their paperwork done or would like to know what the State Codes say about the job of Planning Commissioner, I will be happy to assist. Use the contact author link on this page, email me at calindstrom@verizon.net, or call 540-382-6431.

***and no, I can’t apply. If I did who would handle the camera and audio recorder for the meetings?:)***

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 20, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What is the Comprehensive Plan – A Short View from State Codes. Should changes be made?

09 Jun

This is just one small part of the Comprehensive Plan section of the State Codes. Note the use of the word future. How closely does the Town of Christiansburg come to meeting these criteria? (That has been the topic of multiple previous blogs and will be the catalyst for many more in the future.)

(sections from § 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.)

In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the locality’s long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to:

1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, including age-restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; active and passive recreation; public service; flood plain and drainage; and other areas;

2. The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, sports playing fields, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like;

3. The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment;

4. The designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection measures;

5. A capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestal district maps, where applicable;

6. The location of existing or proposed recycling centers;

7. The location of military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas; and

8. The designation of corridors or routes for electric transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more.

The plan shall include: the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.

The Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003, reviewed and readopted without change in 2007, and will not be up for full rewrite until 2013. The Town Council has the right to request a full review and update anytime it sees fit. There may be some resistance to doing that because there is now a State Statute that required that any changes in the Comprehensive Plan or any new versions of the Comprehensive Plan MUST be submitted to VDOT for approval. This means there would be some eyes outside of Town Government that would be taking a close look at traffic issues and where problems need to be addressed. (See: 15.2-2222.1. Coordination of state and local transportation planning.)

This might be a good issue to bring up with those candidates who will be running for Town Council in the next election. Yep! Definitely sounds like a campaign issue to me.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 9, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Excuse me Mr. Terpenny, where did you get that street width info from? What VDOT has to say!

02 Jun

Why shucks! It is taken right out of VDOT’s Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements dated March 2009. It was also taken out of context. Town Manager Terpenny noted last night that VDOT only required a 24 foot paved roadway when asked about possible problems with access to houses around Sage Lane for Fire, police, etc. (additionally the above link can be viewed as html.

From page 52 of this document:
8) Design Requirements – Context Sensitive Street Design (Page 39 and section 30-92-120 within the SSAR)
The agency’s previous Subdivision Street Requirements commonly included a standard street design width between 36 and 40 feet. These widths combined with local ordinance mandated off-street parking requirements often resulted in an effective local street lane width of 18 feet. Widths of this extent result in large impervious surface areas that exacerbate stormwater runoff and encourages higher vehicular speeds that are generally inappropriate in most areas.
Key elements in the implementation of the SSAR are the revised elements of the roadway’s geometric design. The revised geometric design standards generally allow for narrower streets (24 to 29 feet wide for local streets) than were allowed in the past. These narrower street widths will play a significant role in reducing vehicle speeds through developments. Additionally, these narrower roadways will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff due to their smaller impervious area. While the streets are narrower, they meet the nationally accepted AASHTO minimum design standards for the design of roadways.

Maybe I’m misreading something but it seems that these widths are consistent with the “combined with local ordinance mandated off-street parking requirement”. Howver, within the area of Sage Lane, it appears that some special measures (good ones on the part of the developer were taken to minimize impervious surfaces) such that most homes have room to park only one car and the street is full of additional parked cars from those homes on both sides.

Trying to have their cake and eat it too????? Even the 24 foot width quoted by the Town Manager is at the extreme end of the scale (24 to 29 feet). Is there a local ordinance mandating off-street parking, if so what does it say? How many parking spaces are required? Was there a variance on the existing development?

Something just doesn’t make sense to me….maybe you 2,000 plus readers can find what I’m missing. Maybe you can find it before Town Council does:)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 2, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Planning Commission 6/1/09 available for viewing

01 Jun

http://myvaresources.com/Town%20of%20Cburg/NEWAudioVideo.htm

This is a 3 part video of the 6/1/09 Planning Commission Meeting.

These are the people that the Christiansburg Town Council relies upon for information when it comes to landuse planning decisions. It won’t take long to figure out that New Urbanism is not something that is acknowledged.

Stormwater and flooding issues were brought to the discussion by a couple of the commissioners with one making it clear that the developer, not the town would be responsible for making sure that stormwater was taken care of financially. Fortunately, the clarification of this also puts the onus of responsibility on the Town for making sure that the system designed is adequate. This, in turn means that those certified individuals within the Town will follow up with all the necessary inspections and documenting those as required by law. I have no concerns that this particular individual will do the right thing. He has a history of doing things properly. But, isn’t it comforting to know that the Town will have the legal oversight necessary to protect citizens? It is absolutely amazing how much responsibility the Town has in enforcing things are done properly.

The never-ending saga of Sage Lane was discussed and the Planning Commission determined it was the right use of the land. The final decision will be up to Town Council Tuesday at 7:30 pm at Town Hall.

There is an extra bonus in Part 3 where one Commissioner noted that the citizen’s website where public documents are posted, isn’t worth going to because it is so negative about Town Council and Planning Commission. You know, I never would have thought that the Town Code, Town Charter, Town Council Agendas, Town Council Minutes, Planning Commission Agenda, Planning Commission Minutes (years of those are still missing….ironically at about the time decisions were being made about the Aquatic Center), Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreations Plans, Budgets, and other such information would be seen as casting a negative light on Planning Commission or Town Council. That darned FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) just keeps getting in some people’s way. Oh well! Ya just can’t please everybody.

Get yourself some popcorn and a soda, kick back and enjoy the show.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 1, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Town Council & Planning Commission Videos are now up to date.

29 May

MyVaResources.com audio/vido link will give you a list of those currently avaiable online. Included in this latest batch are the Town Council worksession on bus routes and the last Town Council meeting where a lot of the flooding issues were discussed.

By the way, a quick aside from having lived about 35 years in areas where natural flooding is common. When water is everywhere, ants and other critters go looking for drier climates. Watch out for invasions of ants, wildlife will be where they haven’t been before so drive carefully.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 29, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Why is a Staff Analaysis a good thing for Planning Commission and Town Council to have?

24 May

I’ve previously discussed the importance of a document called a Staff Analysis that is provided to the Planning Commission, and through them, to the Town Council. Unfortunately, the Town of Christiansburg’s government officials do not feel this is important.

Town of Christiansburg Finance Committee Meeting: 1st Budget Discussion.

Christiansburg VA Town Council Meeting Full of Surprises

INFORMATION NEEDED! Where are the staff reports for land use issues?

Comprehensive Plan vs Comprehensive Plan Map, Reading Between the Lines

Planning Commission Recording

A good use of property but a very bad way to allow it to happen. Rezoning from R-2 to B-3

These documents contain information that is crucial for elected officials to make educated and responsible land use decisions.

In order to show you what I mean, I found some good samples from the website of other jurisdictions. If you get a chance to look at one or two you will have a better idea of what I have been talking about.

City of Chesapeake Department of Planning Post Office Box 15225 Chesapeake, Virginia 23328-5225

CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT CONTEXT

STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT

Montgomery County, VA: Planning: Planning Commission: Archives: Staff Analysis: Sarah M. Wall SUP

Attachment C Staff Analysis LAKE MANASSAS OVERLOOK/SAM JONES PROPERTY

As you can see, there is a consistent pattern. Students in Planning Programs throughout the country are taught how to do this. In other words, it is standard practice in the profession and standard practice in local government.

Next time you get a chance ask one of your Town Council or Planning Commission for information such as you see in the documents but related to a land use issue here. Could they answer that question? If not, is it in a report that they can look at before they make their decision. (Oops…that would also mean the Town Council and Planning Commission would need to have the folders of information more than 5 minutes before the meeting begins…..another inconvenience.)

Listen to the audio and video recordings of Planning Commission and Town Council meetings to see if these types of information are even brought forward, much less used in the decision-making process. This one document, if prepared honestly by the planning department, could provide Town Council with a much better understanding of how the decisions they make will affect the town. Those decisions should be made using this rather than solely on whether or not the proposed zoning, rezoning, or conditional use permit will bring tax money into the town.

Of course, there is one drawback to such a document. It becomes a part of the official record and the public can then have access. It sure seems that Town of Christiansburg goes to extreme efforts to keep people from knowing what is going on. If the land use decision that made has a negative impact on you, wouldn’t you like to know that all issues had been looked at and that there was a legitimate reason for your loss?

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 24, 2009 in Citizen Participation, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Low Impact Development Part 2: What is this new stuff?

28 Apr

Low Impact Development (LID) in not exactly new. It is a concept that has been around for a while. There is a website that contains some great graphics that show what this is all about at Implementing Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Presentation to the City of Virginia Beach Watershed – Friendly Landscape Workshop at the TCC – ATC on Low Impact Development (LID): March 4 & 5, 2009, By Charlies H. Heffington, Jr., NSPE. Nobody can look at these photographs and fail to see how this type of development would increase property values. Hidden within the overall design is the fact that these same designs have the added benefit of helping the environment. That means a positive affect on the air we breathe, the water we drink, our food supply, and our recreational needs. The simple process of mimicing what nature has done for centuries can serve to improve quality of life for people with such developments and for anyone downstream from where that stormwater would normally flow.

Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc provides basic information on LID’s in it’s October 2003 Tecnical Update. The discussion on “What is LID?” covers what and LID is supposed to accomplish as an alternative to conventional methods of stormwater management. They go further in their discussion to note that while it may not be practical in all situations, even partial application of LID can have positive overall results. Although the specific State Code referred to at the end of the article causing the creation of a Low Impact Development Assessment Task Force has expired, language is now included in Virginia State Code Section 10.1-603.4 (Development regulation.) Subsection 8: “Encourage low impact development designs, regional and watershed approaches, and nonstructural means for controlling stormwater;” (This section of the State Code also gives some other useful information, so if you take the time to look up the section I’ve quoted here, please take a few extra minutes to read the rest.)

The Norfolk District Regulatory Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a site that provides information that may be important for those jurisdiction that may want to look grant money as possible sources for revitalization of neighborhoods. (See some of what has already happened concerning some of these Water Quality Improvements by way of Virginia grants on this press release from Governor Tim Kaine.What elected officials may find helpful is the “Report on December 2003 Low Impact Development Workshops…” as it identifies some of the issues that would need to be addressed in order to implement LID’s locally such as ordinances and enforcement issues.

Brining the issues involved in effective stormwater management is the “2007 Virginia/West Virginia Water Research Symposium: The Inn at Virginia Tech and Skelton Conference Center, Blacksburg, VA; November 26-30, 2007“. This document simply contains an overview of some of the presentations but there are links to authors and department listings that could prove useful in tracking down more information. On page 2, There is an overview (actually, all of these are abstracts of papers presented at the conference that I have not found yet) on “The Adoption of Low Impact Development in Virginia Local Governments”, by Moonsun Jeong of the Environmenta Design and Planning Department at Virginia Tech. All of hte information here constitute good places to begin the process of understanding the importance of effective stormwater practices and how this issues is not simply about one person’s yard. It is a process with far reaching implications from headwaters to the Ocean and returning in the form of rain.

The Valley Concervation Council has a website with a lot of great links to Low Impact Development information sources. One such document is the final report from the Low Impact Development Assessment Task Force noted above. Another one is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: The Parctice of Low Impact Development. (Note, this is a bit slow to download but is well organized and very informative.)

Why heck, there is even a Low Impact Development Center, Inc. These folks cover the issues, the newest products, and provide a great resource for any developers brave enough to use this approach. (Unfortunately, there have been some attempts in other jurisdictions that have been shut down because of their elected officials!) Lack of information provided to public officials is just as dangerous as having information given to those officials who ignore it!! Some of the featured topics I found include Green Highways & Green Infrastructure and Rain Garden Templates. The even have a link to resources for people who are trying to plan LID’s complete with examples and designs in AutoCAD and JPEG formats as well as information as to construction, cost, maintenance, specifications, and watershed benefits.

Chesterfield County, Virginia, Fairfax County, Virginia and Stafford, Virginia are both taking Low Impact Development seriously. The DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) Erosion and Sediment Control 2009 LID Product Order Form allows individuals, companies, and even elected officials the opportunity to order products in DVD and/or CD format that provides and introduction to Low-Impact Development, brochures, manuals, worksheets and sample codes. Strategies for implementation can be found at the RiverFriends.org site’s report: Low Impact Development Strategies for Rural Communities,by John Tippett, Executive Director, Friends of the Rappahannick, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia and Neil Weinstein, Executive Director, Low Impact Development Center, Beltsville, Maryland . This contains a good discussion on how the Town Manager of Warsaw, Virginia found that conventional methods of stormwater management would not be as cost effective as using the TID approach.

It is clear there is no lack of information on how effective and efficient Low Impact Development is in the area of stormwater management. If you take the time to read some of the articles noted here, you will see there are a lot of opportunities for local government, civic groups, home owner groups, and individuals. An investment made today, can have a long lasting impact on reducing the cost to taxpayers for conventional storm water management and mitigation of streams/streambanks, providing grant money for rennovating older communities, increasing property values (and, of course, taxes), helping to protect our food supplies (as both land and aquatic organism require clean water, preventing pollutants from entering our drinking water, and perhaps, restoring some of our waterways into features that can be fully utilized by future generations. We have the opportunity to prevent further damage to our waterways and even undo some of the destruction that has already occurred. With all of this information available, it looks like the only thing missing is the will to do it.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 28, 2009 in Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts