RSS

Tag Archives: flooding

Christiansburg Town Council: Spending YOUR money before they get it.

07 Jun

Revisiting a re-visitation of the Meals Tax increase is on the agenda on the Tuesday, June 8th, Special Meeting of the Christiansburg Town Council. Rather than go through all the gory (although sickly humorous) details of why this is necessary, read the editorial at the Roanoke Times.com: Editorial: Christiansburg’s budget shenanigans. You can always watch the video at MyVAResources.com’s Videos of Public Meetings page, Part 5 on the 6/1/10 Town Council Meeting is the key element. On another note in the same sad song: Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
8 Comments

Posted by on June 7, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Local Government, VA government, VOTE, Your Tax Money

 

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

Cambria Toy Station – a Phoenix from the muck rather than ashes…

28 Jul

The Cambria Toy Station has reopened.

I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused customers, but the Historic Structure has to have priority. The floors are American Chestnut which as most of you know is extinct, so there is NO replacing it. Drying out those floors has been a very slow process to insure there was no warping or other damage. Except for a bit more painting that needs to be done, the store is about ready. Our inventory is a bit low because we were unable to verify that there were no hazardous chemical or sewage in the stormwater so anything that got possibly damp… got gone! The safety, health, and well being of you and your families is and always will be our primary goal within the store.  We hope to start with hours from 10:00AM to 5:00PM Wednesday through Saturday and 1:00PM to 5:00PM on Sundays starting July 29th, Wednesday.

After being closed for over two months trying to repair damage to the Depot from the stormwater flooding that occurred (by the way, the stormwater drain by the other train station is still funneling a ton of water directly into the floodplain. (A short video is available but it may be a bit slow to load right now.) That water comes off of all the area above the Main Street intersection. During a good rain, it creates a kinda kewl waterfall, unless, of course, you have to be out in that rain trying to keep more flooding from happening. That should be a heads up to all of you who live in that area. Whatever you put in your yard or in the ditch ends up coming through that pipe under the road and dumping on to the ground then goes directly into the Creek. That means, what you dump you (or someone else) drinks. What you dump affects aquatic life and the nearby plants and animals relying on that Creek to stay alive.

It also means that a lot more sedimentation is going into the Creek. When that settles out, you will find the water level slowly increasing and more flooding is likely. If you can remember a time when the water didn’t come over the bank nearly as much, this process is a likely culprit. Try filling a glass of water to the brim, then toss in a couple of tablespoons of dirt and what happens. Be sure you have a towel handy or do it on a surface that you don’t mind getting wet though!

Then you really, really have to wonder about the number of sewage issues and how much of that ended up going into the stormwater. That adds the potential for a lot of nasty bacteria and such ending up in the water supply. Thus far, we are still fighting against future flooding in Cambria.

Before you start saying, well it’s in a floodplain so it is suppose to flood, remember that it has been in that floodplain for decades without any flooding. The problems did not start until the town raised the road level again (now a total of 18″ in 20 years), installed that crazy concrete ‘dam’ in the middle of the road, installed a drainage – sidewalk system that looks nice but is totally dysfunctional, and started allowing a lot of development in the surround area without enforcing the town’s codes (and state laws) concerning stormwater and erosion/sediment control.

Remember that glass of water experiment I spoke of earlier? In the real world that dirt is picked up and carried by water going to stormdrains. Some of that sediment settles out in those basis designed to collect and channel stormwater flow. As time goes by, layers of sediment build up and the result is that the catch basins cannot hold as much water. That is why people saw the Town’s trucks out in Cambria at 6AM on the morning of the 15th. They were trying to pump out the sediment that had built up, preventing the system from draining effectively. The fact that that is a fairly new system shows that there is a significant problem with either the amount of sediment going into the drains or that town staff have not been given the latitude to do the type of monitoring and maintenance required to make sure these types of situations do not occur. Preventative maintenance is much less expensive than dealing with the affects of doing nothing.

By the way, there are those who are reporting that they have been assured by one council member that their problems will be taken care of by the Town. Cambria Emporium and Cambria Depot, two of the buildings in Town listed in the Federal Registry of Historic Places have not been provided such assurances from anyone in the Town. We do however, have new painting for parking and crosswalk which is appreciated as it adds to customer and tourist safety. I just hope the paint surface used can be seen from several inches under muddy water.

By the way, in any situation where you have reported these types of erosion and sediment control issues, notify the Town first. You do not have to accept being ignored as many have complained to me has been done to them. If the Town does not deal with the problem, your next course of action is to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation for help.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 28, 2009 in Land Use

 

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

Town of Christiansburg has finally put all of Town Code Chapter 10 on Town website!

15 Jul

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:

Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control

Sec. 10-1 Definitions

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.

Sec. 10-4. Local program; adoption of state standards and regulations.

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.

Sec. 10-5. Erosion and sediment control plan—When required; exceptions.

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Sec. 10-9. Monitoring, reports and inspections.

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.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 15, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 6

14 Jul
RELATED ARTICLES:

Despite the issues noted, page 31 of the pdf document (DCR report./Corrective Action) gives a Local ESC Program Rating that reports the following. While not a perfect score, it clearly shows those areas where opportunities exist for the Town of Christiansburg to improve its performance when it comes to the management of Erosion & Sediment and Stormwater.

CERTIFIED PERSONNEL (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

  1. Locality has a Certified Program Administrator
  2. Plans are reviewed by a Certified Plan Reviewer
  3. Inspections are conducted by a Certified Inspector

ESC Ordinance (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

  1. All required items are present and correct and all optional items are included.

General Program Administration (Scored 8 out of 10 possible points)

  1. 2 points for Locality charges plan review/land disturbance permit fees.
  2. 2 points for Locality requires pre-construction conference.
  3. 0 points for Locality has developed an ESC application package, including standard forms and instructions
  4. 2 points for Locality uses a database or attaches a standard tracking/summary sheet to the project folder
  5. 2 points for Locality organizes ESC documents by project.

Plan Reviews (Scored 85 out of 100 possible points)

  1. 20 of 20 points: Prior to commencement of land disturbing activity, an approved plan or agreement-in-lieu-of-plan is required for all projects.
  2. 5 of 5 points: Where there is a plan or agreement in lieu of plan, designation of a Responsible land Disturber or individual holding a certificate of competence is required prior to commencement of land distrubing activity (UNLESS APPROPRIATELY WAIVED)
  3. 5 of 5 points: Plans are reviewed within 45 days of receipt.
  4. 5 of 5 points: The plan reviewer states in writing the reasons for disapproval and specifies the needed modifications for approval.
  5. 20 of 30 points: 70% of reviewed plans meet the applicable Minimum Standards (should have been 100%)
  6. 10 of 15 points: 70% of reviewed plans comply with VESCH guidelines (should have been 100%)
  7. 5 of 5 points: Maintenance responsibilities for ESC measures are included in the approved plan
  8. 5 of 5 points: Locality maintains a copy of approved plan or agreement in lieu of plan and associated documentation until final stabilization
  9. 5 of 5: Variances are requested and responded to in writing
  10. 5 of 5: Other considerations: Locality implements two of the items listed below:
    1. No. maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
    2. No. Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
    3. YES. Opportunity for inspector review and recommendation is incorporated into the plan review process.
    4. No. When plan review is provided by a SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
    5. No. Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.
    6. Yes. All plans are stamped and dated upon approval

Inspections (55 of 100 possible points earned)

  1. 5 of 15 poinst for: inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls. Based upon: For at least 50% (but no more than 69%) of reviewed projects, inspections occurred during or immediately following installation
  2. 0 of 20 points: Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement of 4VAC50-30-60. Based upon: Inspection frequency averages greater than once in every four week period or the locality has not fully implemented it’s Board approved Alternative Inspection Program.
  3. 15 of 20 points: Inspection documentation meets program requirements. Based upon: documentation includes project name, inspection date, violations, changes that are required, and notes on verbal or written communications with responsible party. (Note: the missing component that would have given them all 20 points was – deadlines for correcting violations.)
  4. 20 of 30 points: Visited sites meet the VESCR Minimum Standards. Based upon: Each visited site meets all but two of the applicable Minimum Standards (Note: If this had been three instead of two, the score earned would have been zero.)
  5. 10 of 10 points: Inspections were conducted at the completion of a project and prior to release of any performance bond. Based upon: At least 70% of the sites were inspected at project completion.
  6. 5 of 5 points: Inspection Management. Based upon: Locality implements two or more of the items listed below:
    1. Yes: Procedure in place to coordinate plan changes resulting from inspection activities with the plan approval authority.
    2. NO: The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
    3. Yes: When variances are requested during land disturbance they are responded to in writing.
    4. Yes: A pre-construction meeting is held on all sites requiring a plan.
    5. Yes. Duplicated copies of inspection reports are left on-site with the responsible party.
    6. NO: As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

Enforcement (80 of 100 possible points)

  1. 20 of 30 points: When violations noted on written inspection reports remain during subsequent inspection(s), Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) are issued. Based upon: Where violations remained, NTC were issued 70% of the time.
  2. 10 of 10 points: Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documents and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
  3. 10 of 10 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work Orders (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documentation and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
  4. 30 of 30 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work orders (or equivalent action) were issued when appropriate. Based upon: Advanced enforcement was issued 100% of the time or inspection documentation and site visits indicate advanced enforcement was not necessary.
  5. (4 individual components worth 5 points each for a total of 20 points: 10 of 20 points earned.)
    1. 5 of 5 points: Locality has developed or utilized standard enforcement documents
    2. 0 of 5 points: Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
    3. 0 of 5 points: Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.
    4. 5 of 5 points: Bond revocation, civil penalties, criminal penalties, etc. are used to secure compliance.

Well, that’s it for my review of the DCR Audit and Corrective Action. Hope you have learned as much as I have. It will be interesting to see what actions the Town has taken to correct these issues. Come to Town Council meetings and bring your questions with you. It is your property, your town, and your government.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 14, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 4

11 Jul

All of the previous information has given some insight into the degree of importance the Town of Christiansburg attributes to stormwater issues and erosion & sediment control. This section is based on the actual observations made by DCR professionally trained staff when the project sites were visited.

I feel this shows that NOT ALL SITES ARE TREATED EQUALLY! Pay close attention to the Aquatic Center where some of our own town staff are helping with the work. I hope that better care of that facility is taken in the future than it is during these phases. And, to be so very, very close to a creek that runs into Crab Creek where there are already problems with sedimentation….good grief. Guess my mom was right again: “Judge a peson by what he does, not by what he says he will do.”

Now…to the site visit reports:

  • AEP Tech Drive Station
    • Perfect score!
    • Comments: Road cut to be seeded 10/23/08. Road has good CRS application
  • Christiansburg Aquatic Center (A few NO’s here)
    • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
    • Sec. 1: Seeded?
    • Sec. 1: Mulched?
    • Sec. 6: Are sediment traps or basins installed where indicated on the plans?
    • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
    • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Comments: Drainage channel lacking geotextile lining at arch culvert. Numerous slopes eroding due to inadequate vegetative stabilization. Silt fence & inlet protection failing in numerous areas. No sediment traps present.
  • Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s:
    • Sec 3: Does permanent vegetation provide adequate stabilization?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Sec. 18: Have all temporary control structures that are no longer needed been removed?
    • Comments: SWM Basin missing outlet protection to receiving channel. Outlet protection into basin not sized properly. Basin requires additional seeding for adequate vegetative cover. Old silt fence has not been removed.
  • Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision NO’s:
    • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
    • Sec. 1: Seeded?
    • Sec. 1: Mulched?
    • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
    • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Comment: Basin Outfall receiving channel not propertly shaped. Outlet protection of sediment basin undersized. Roadway requires CRS application. Inlet protection failing on some inlets.
  • AGILOP Lot 108 Wind Mill Hills Subdivision NO’s:
    • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
    • Comment: Silt fence not entrenched.
  • AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision NO’s:
    • Perfect score!
    • Comments: No problems observed.
  • AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision No’s:
    • Sec. 2: Are soil stockpiles and borrow areas adequately stabilized or protected with seeding and/or sediment trapping measures?
    • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
    • Comments: Silt fence not entrenched. Stakes on wrong side of silt fence. Stockpile silt fence not entrenched.

This series will conclude tomorrow with the Inspection/Enforcement discussion.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 11, 2009 in Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 3

10 Jul

The bulk of the pages provided in the DCR report have to do with Plan Reviews and Site Visit Checklist for specific sites. Note that this is an evaluation of the Town of Christiansburg’s peformance. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Town of Christiansburg to be sure that things are done in such a manner as to protect citizens.

However, these issues, if correctly dealt with by the Town serve to benefit both citizens and developers. Doing something the RIGHT way, the first time, is something that I was raised up to believe. Only partially doing a job, or doing a job poorly simply means you will have to deal with it at some point in the future. In situation such as the management of Stormwater, it is not only the Town that pays for errors, it is citizens. If things are not done properly at the beginning and problems occur, YOUR TAXMONEY is what will have to be used to fix the problem, if it gets fixed. Alternately, it is your out of pocket expenses to replace and repair, it is your insurance rates going up, it is your property values going down. And, to be affected by these things, you do not have to live on an affected property, you only have to live near it.

Shortcuts and doing only the minimum the law requires is a bit less than taxpayers have a right to expect from government. I think it would be a good idea for elected officials to do a more thorough review of Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater ordinances to see where the minimum is just maybe…not enough. That would be a good review of at least one part of the code.

The proposed recodification of the Code that is suppose to be in the works would simply make sure that the Town Code meets the minimum standards as required by the State. What Town Council needs to take a close look at is where in the State Codes they are allowed to do more than meet that minimum and determine if THOSE areas should be revised.

Plan Review MS Checklist (I am only including those areas which receive NO answers instead of the desired YES ones):

  • AEP Tech Drive Station. Sec. 19 of this contains the NO’s that were noted:
  • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
  • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
  • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
  • Comment: Additionally, there is the following comment: “No supporting offsite receiving channel calculations found for 2 of the 4 outfalls on site. Outfalls of bioretention BMP are not supported.
  • Christiansburg Aquatic Center Multiple NO’s found:
    • Sec.1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 6: Are detailed drawings in the plans?
    • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
    • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
    • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
    • Comment: No analysis of adequacy of receiving channels. No calculations for storm sewer system found in file. Sediment traps and sediment basin discussed in narrative but not shown on plan. No permanent controls from post construction runoff.
  • Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s found:
    • Sec. 1: Are practices shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 11: Are channel lining and/or outlet protection required on stormwater conveyance channels?
    • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
    • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
    • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
    • Comment: No outlet protection design calculation in narrative. Offsite receiving channel at northwest corner has not been analyzed for adequacy.
  • Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 108 Wind mill Hills Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!

It’s nice to find that some of the areas inspected had such great scores. As a citizen, knowing and believing that the Town should be an example, I am embarassed at the results found at the Aquatic Center. This is suppose to be a bright and shining star in our Town. We should start by taking good care of it RIGHT NOW!!! Of course some of the issues with Erosion & Sediment Control might just be why some of the delays occurred. Considering some of the stuff I’ve seen on my daily drivebys there, I would just about be willing to bet that has contributed to some of the delays. You can’t get close because it is posted, but a great deal can be seen from the road. A great deal more can be seen from the road with a pair of binoculars or a camera with a really good zoom lens:)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 10, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 2

08 Jul

Beginning on page 3 of pdf created from the document received from DCR addressed in Part 1 of this series (Department of Conservation and Recreation) is the “LOCAL ESC PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST”. Four different program areas are evaluated: Administration, Plan Review, Inspection & Enforcement.

Let me make it clear at the onset that this checklist includes a combination of things that are Minimally required, Recommended practices, or deal with ‘optional items’ where the criteria MUST be met if these ‘optional items’ are utilized by the Town.

In Part I: Administration the Town’s performance looks pretty good until you get to page 6 where the NO’s start coming in or what appear to be recommended steps:

  • Plan review/land disturbance fees are enough to enable local ESC program to be fully self-sufficient
  • Locality has developed an ESC plan/Permit application package that includes a standard application form and user-friendly instructions for conducting land-disturbing activities.
  • Project start and finish.

These results rather lead one to the impressions:

  • That taxpayer money is having to be used to support the costs of the ESC (Erosion and Sediment Control) rather than having the person doing the land disturbing cover that cost.
  • That without a standard application form and user-friendly instructions it is possible for ‘arbitrary and capricious’ behaviors to be perceived even if not true and that misunderstandings could occur between the person completing the application and the town.
  • That the failure to include start and finish dates of projects could potentially leave projects “in development” or hanging around for decades.

Ultimately, this speaks to the issue of what happens when the focus is only on meeting MINIMUM requirements of State Code. The reason for establishing MINIMUM requirements is because there is such diversity in topography, soil types, and absorption rates, this leaves jurisdictions with the flexibility to ADD to these minimum standards in a way that best serves its citizens. It is not a law saying that ONLY those minimum standards must be met. It is a starting place, common ground, from which the Town should be building its ordinances to protect citizens and the environment.

In Part II: Plan Review there were also a few NO’s.

  • Maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
  • Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
  • When plan review is provided by s SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
  • Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.

Again, this section speaks primarily to how the Town of Christiansburg prefers to meet the minimum standards. All of the NO’s above were related to recommended items. The Maintenance of permanent facilities for stormwater management is a requirement. Now whether it is done by the Town, agreed to by the developer, or falls upon the shoulders of the property owner is not clearly defined at the early stages of the process and could become a ‘bone of contention’ later on. The Lot by Lot grading plans would insure that criteria are met for each indivudal lot, thus preventing issues arising in the future where grading on one lot could have a negative affect on another lot if the parcel is taken as a whole.

In Part III: Inspection, there were some NO’s and some of these are required. The required articles are denoted by bold print.

  • Inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls.
  • Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement
  • Inspection documentation includes deadlines for correcting violations and notes on verbal or written communication with responsible party.
  • ECS measures are repaired and maintained
  • Sites visited during the program review process are consistent with the applicable VESCR Minimum Standards
  • The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
  • As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

This is a highly relevant component of the entire process. The Town Council can vote on and pass ordinances all day long such as the erosion & sediment control ordinance discussed here. But! Exactly what use is an ordinance if it is not followed up on by inspections? These inspections are a crucial component in making sure that things are being done correctly and that future problems can be averted (the state code even allows for modification of plans should problems arise during the process. All the Plans and Enforcement in the world are wasted (including taxpayer money to support those activities) if the necessary inspections are not being done!

In Part IV: Enforcement there were only two (2) NO’s and both were recommended rather than required.

  • Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
  • Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.

Beginning on page 10 and continuing through page 34 you can find the reviews of specific land disturbing sites. However, on page 35 is the Local Program Overall Rating which shows why the Corrective Action Agreement was warranted (a minimum of 70 points is required):

Available
Points		 Earned
Points		 Program Area
100 98 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
100 85 PLAN REVIEW
100 55 INSPECTION
100 80 ENFORCEMENT

This one sure doesn’t take a brain surgeon or an engineer to figure it out. It is a simple 4 step process. Only in this case, one of the steps is inadequate. The scenario is not unlike sitting in a chair with one broken leg. So long as you maintain perfect balance and don’t move, you’ll be just fine as long as your muscles hold out. Sooner or later though, you’re going to get tired, a muscle will spasm…and BAM! You’re gonna hit the floor.

I’m still wondering if any of the Town Council members were aware of this report. I know that some were not until Tuesday night.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 8, 2009 in Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg

08 Jul

I recently requested a document from Department of Conservation and Recreation. This request was based on a comment made by the Christiansburg Town Manager to Town Council at a public meeting, the Town Council Meeting of December 16, 2008 (written minutes). This statement was to advise Town Council that the Erosion & Sediment Stormwater Ordinance for the Town of Christiansburg (Chapter 10 of the Town Code) (or audio at the 45 minute mark) needed to be modified slightly because there were changes in definitions of the State Code and a few minor changes in design. The Town Council voted to accept this ‘document’. Only one problem, the document didn’t exist. Or at least when I asked for a copy I was told that it hadn’t been written yet. (The updated version of Chapter 10 of the Town Code is now available at the town website (see link above). If it had and if the Town Council members had read it, they would have found that there were a lot of changes and they were significant, not minor. Of particular note was increased enforcement, increased fines for violators, and higher standards in erosion & sediment/stormwater control measures.

Since that time, I did a review of Town Council Meeting Minutes, the Town Code, the State Code, and just about everything else I could find. I did line by line comparisons of the Town Code with the State Code and the various DCR documents that establish guidelines and criteria.

DCR did a program review for the Town of Christiansburg. The specific dates of that review were October 21 and 22 of 2008. Someone within the Town of Christiansburg received a Corrective Action Statement from DCR based on the results of that study. It mandated that the Town of Christiansburg woul sign the Corrective Action Agreement no later than April 18, 2009 and that a written report on progress would be provided to DCR no later than June 17, 2009. It also mandated that the corrective actions would be completed no later than September 15, 2009.

I will be reporting on several aspects of this report but, for now, I want to focus only on the Corrective Actions. Take a look at these and see if it really looks like a few minor changes based upon definitions were needed, or if there are/have been greater issues with the Town’s approach to Stormwater management. It is important to realize that once property is rezoned, the Town Council is effectively out of the picture and totally dependent upon the actions of the Town Manager to insure that the health, safety, and well-being of citizens is maintained. The Codes of the Town of Christiansburg give virtually exclusive rights to the Town Manager to enforce criteria, make waivers, accept less than minimum standards, etc.

The program component that is noted for corrective action is “INSPECTION” and 4 specific items were noted.

  1. Inspections shall be conducted during or immediately following initial installation of E&S controls per 4VAC50-30-60B.
  2. Inspections shall be conducted at the required frequency per 4VAC50-30-60B.
  3. Erosion and Sediment control measures shall be repaired and maintained per 4VAC50-30-60A and Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 1992. (VESCH).
  4. Inspections shall ensure that sites are consistent with the applicable Minimum standards (4VAC50-30-40).

Of course I’m not a professional, but this looks like someone is saying that Inspections for Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Management were not be done in compliance with State Codes and that the Town of Christiansburg has been directed to correct these ‘errors/ommissions’.

Note that this document was signed by the Town Manager on 4/3/09 (the document from DCR is dated 3/19/09). There are a total of 35 pages in this document. This is the first page. Additional pages provide more specific information concerning the reviews performed and areas that were scored.

More on the information found on these additional pages tomorrow.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 8, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FOIA DCR Christiansburg and Erosion & Sediment: an example of FOIA

30 Jun

What discussion of the FOIA would be worth its salt without a decent example? Not this one….this one has an example.

This is a quest for information that began with a statement made by the Town Manager to the Christiansburg Town Council on December 16, 2008. The comment can be found in the Discussions by Mayor and Council Members section of the Minutes of that meeting:

2. An ordinance amending Chapter 10 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the  Christiansburg Town Code. Manager Terpenny explained that the State periodically reviews our Code, and due to minor changes in definitions in State Code, was  advised that this amendment is necessary to bring our Code into line with State Code. Councilman Wade made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment as recommended, seconded by Councilman Barber. Council voted as follows: AYES: Barber, Carter, Showalter, Stipes, Vanhoozier, Wade. NAYS: None.

Several days later (and several times since), I have asked for a copy of that document. I was told that the ordinance is still being written. It would appear from this information that Town Council actual voted on and approved a non-existent ordinance concerning Erosion and Sediment Control.

Despite multiple requests to the Town and being told that the ordinance was being written, I decided to do a bit of further research. I contacted DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation).

Now, those people have really got it together when it comes to access to public records. They did a superb job in handling my requests, providing the documents I requested quickly and thoroughly, and where I had requested documents that they did not have, they told me who was responsible for those documents and where to obtain them. THAT is a ‘gold star’ FOIA response in my book!!!

Anyway, the results of my FOIA request can be found on the Special Studies page of MyVAResources.com (or if you’re in a hurry go directly to the document, it is a fairly large pdf file). This is the Report following a DCR review of Christiansburg’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The first page is a summary with more information following in the document. This first page is entitled: Corrective Action Agreement, Town of Christiansburg, Erosion & Sediment Control Program, March 19, 2009. Note that is the dte of the corrective action. The minutes indicate this was brought before Town Council on December 16, 2008. The town manager signed the agreement to complete the corrective actions (by Sept. 15, 2009). The review of the program by DCR was conducted October 21 & 22, 2008.

I must admit that I am a bit puzzled by what appears to have been Town Council voting on something that didn’t exist, or else I have been denied access to public records. I have asked multiple people, including some of the Town Council members about this document, but I have only been told that it is being written. Sometimes, strange things happen when FOIA requests are concerned.

This would have gone unnoticed by me if it were not for the fact that we have the FOIA and I took the time to learn how to use it. See more information about the Town of Christiansburg and the FOIA at http://www.vaopengov.org Citizen Initiative for Transparency Study Report.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 30, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What can FOIA mean to you? Here is one example concerning stormwater in Christiansburg, VA

24 Jun

Well, that will depend upon what area your interest direct you to
explore. For instance, over a year ago, I did a FOIA request of the
Town of Christiansburg for Minutes of Town Council and planning
Commission Meeting Minutes from 2001 through 2008. I received all of
the Town Council minutes and some of the Planning Commission minutes.

Rather
than have to dig through those documents when I have a question or am
looking for a pattern, I scanned them and set them up as searchable
.pdf documents. This gave me a fairly useful tool for allowing my mind
to wander.

For instance when searches were done on stormwater and flood/flooding:

Did you know that from July through December of 2001, there was no mention of any of those words in the Town Council Minutes.

In the 2002 calendar year, there were 18 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2003 calendar year, there were 12 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2004 calendar year, there were 3 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2005 calendar year, there was 1 instance where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2006 calendar year, there were 3 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2007 calendar year, there were 2 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2008 calendar year, there were 5 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

Now,
I will be looking at these much more closely for a future report but
what is abundandently clear is the fact that most of these
‘discussions’ came from citizens who were suffering the negative
effects of stormwater/flood/flooding.

There were a few
occasions, during times when ‘stormwater’ was made a major issue by
citizens, that stormwater was brought up by Council members in relation
to rezoning/development issues.

I will note that during the time
that Mayor Linkous was in office, these issues were brought up more
frequently, and the people bringing them up during those times were:
Mr. Ballengee, Mr. Barber, and Mrs. Carter. Also, it should be noted
that the large ‘growth spurt’ which generated massive amounts of
impervious surfaces began around 2005.

Many of the areas
mentioned in the minutes are still having problems with
stormwater/flood/flooding (as noted in the recent flooding problems
reported in Christiansburg.

So I found some information. What
good is it? Well, by itself, it isn’t much. If you take the time to
make use of some of the other documents open to the public, you can
begin to get a bit of the bigger picture. These other documents are
found on the internet and include things like the latest DCR provided
rules and regulations for stormwater management (comparing that to the
Town of Christiansburg Code has been a real experience!) and the
various State Codes specific to stormwater management and flooding.

What
is troublesome is the number of times that Town Council members heard
about citizen fear of stormwater issues related to new development and
went ahead and approved the development with the understanding that the
Town Manager would make sure that all was done correctly to insure
safety. This is the same Town Manager would couldn’t manage to upgrade
the Town’s Storm Water Ordinance.

At the 3/4/2003 Town Council
meeting then Councilman Ballengee specifically asked about any problems
related to recent heavy rains. The Town Manager noted that there had
been minor flooding and minor road destruction and that all reports
were handled according to Town procedure. There does not appear to be
any further discussion of what this “Town procedure” might have been.

One
quickly gets the same impression from those historic minutes that one
can get from recent Town Council minutes. That impression is that the
Town Council hears about issues, the Mayor trustingly hands the issue
over to the Town Manager, and no further discussion ensues.

At
the most recent Town Council Meeting, I specifically asked Council what
was being done to keep the flooding from reoccurring. The question was
fielded by the Mayor and passed off to the Town Manager who simply
responded that the flooding was being investigated. Nothing was offered
to report that any steps were being taken to deal with the issue and
yet town work crews have been seen in multiple locations trying to pump
out the accumulated silt and debris from storm drains. Routine
inspection and maintenance? If there is such a thing within the Town,
then has that schedule been modified as the amount of silt and debris
from construction sites have multiplied? Are we still doing things the
way we have for the last 30 years? Personally, I’ve never seen this
type of work performed before, but I’ve only been living here for the
last 10 years and I have not been watching every storm drain every
minute of every day:)

One thing I will say is that I have the
utmost respect for those workers who are doing the job. They are not
the ones who created the problems. They were not the “DECIDER”
determining what constituted a problem with runoff from sites or
whether proper measures were taken to curb that runoff before it got
into the system and created problems. They are simply the ones who have
to clean up other people’s messes.

Nope, I haven’t been off
the FOIA topic here. I’ve just given an example of how anybody can use
that information that he/she has the right to obtain. There are a lot
of other examples out there. You can start looking at some of them on
my citizen’s information website MyVAResources.com. Or take a closer look at how the FOIA process has worked in Christiansburg at the Citizen Initiative for Transparency site.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 24, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

← Older posts