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 »
While I certainly hope the Town of Christiansburg takes the opportunity to take a close look at what is needed in a Town Manager for a town this size, the more immediate concern is what happens as of August 1 when the current Town Manager is out of office. It looks like the Town Charter will make it interesting:
Here’s what the Town Charter says: Read the rest of this entry »
One benefit of moving the Town of Christiansburg, Virginia elections from May to November is that it will require an update to the Town Charter. This provides town government with a great opportunity to update some other things as well.
For example, in the Town Council Meeting Minutes for 2003 the following can be found from the November 4, 2003 Minutes’s Town Manager Report Section:
MANAGER TERPENNY asked for Council approval to ask Delegate Nutter to sponsor a Charter amendment allowing Town purchases to follow State Code guidelines. He explained that Town Charter has never been changed egarding Town purchases and is currently way below public procurement laws. Currently, Town Charter requires bidding for purchases over three thousand dollars ($3,000.00); State law requires bidding for purchases over fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Councilman Barber made a motion to allow Manager Terpenny to proceed with the request for sponsorship of a Charter amendment allowing Town purchases to follow State Code guidelines, which was seconded by Councilwoman Carter. Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Lester, and Weaver. NAYS: None.
Unfortunately, we are now almost 6 years after this issue was reported to Town Council and Town Council voted to approve the Charter change and no such change has occurred. I did check the Legislative Information System data for changes in Charter throughout the State and this change did not appear in list of passed, failed, or in any pending/committee lists. Unless, of course, some reason was found to indicate State officials did not think this was a good idea. (No evidence of that was found either.)
In other words, it appears that a problem was identified, a solution was found, and the ball was dropped. No further reports were documented in the Meeting Minutes to indicate if Del. Nutter had been contacted or not. One would have to assume, based upon any lack of updates to this, that it was at the Town level that communications fell apart.
If the referendum to move the vote is passed, the Town will need to update the Town Charter to reflect the new date and starting dates for candidates. This would be a good time to make an effort to go through the Town Charter looking for other issues that should be addressed and making sure that all needed updates are made. I certainly hope that the town would not plan on take 6 or more years to update the Charter for the new election date.
If the referendum fails, maybe it is still a good time to look at fixing issues that were identified 6 years ago! Either way, there needs to be some method for making sure that things are followed through on after they are presented to and voted upon by Council. Believe me, there are plenty of other such “ball dropping” events filed throughout the Minutes. But, don’t take my word for it, look for yourself …. at least until I finish my report:)
If you like a short read….you’re at the wrong place today. You might want to just copy and paste the text to a document file and read it as you have time. But, please do read it! If you have problems reading this here due to the length. just go to http://myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/
A recent Roanoke Times article “Town Council plots out Christiansburg’s future“, pretty much says it all.
In the first line of the article you will find : “Town officials have a vision for what they want Christiansburg to look like in 2020.
First off, a true long-range view typically covers, at a minimum, a 20 year time span, NOT 11 years. Secondly, this makes if very clear that the Town officials are thoroughly convinced that they are the only ones who should make a determination of what Christiansburg should look like. Thus implying that what citizens want or think is totally unnecessary. Next, Mayor Ballengee notes he has “…always felt we needed to have a long-range plan for Christiansburg…” … duh!… that’s what a Comprehensive Plan is about. That’s what a Capital Improvements Program is about! Since we’re not making effective use of either of those two, we should try something else? Typically, this type of Vision Statement is the starting part for writing a New Comprehensive Plan. Maybe that is what the Town has in mind? Not likely. They have out of date charter, out of date codes, a comprehensive plan that is inadequate and did not include sufficient quality citizen input to be a fair representation of what citizens want….why break up the set! Maybe they are trying to change. I personally doubt it. This just looks like more of the typical ‘smoke and mirrors’ distractions of citizens to keep them as ignorant as possible of what is going on. Only time will tell. And, this is one time that I sincerely hope that my expectations are wrong and that a new era of openness and the inclusion of citizens is going to really happen. I will not hold my breath though. Ballengee’s statement “We hope our community will embrace this plan,” pretty much says it all. What plan? Where is it? Where can citizens see it? How can citizens comment on it? You want us to embrace ‘it’, without knowing what ‘it’ is, without hearing what we (all citizens) think about what you have decided is best for us? Well, that’s how it has worked previously. It is the attitude that has lead to massive developments without fair consideration being made of the impact on citizen’s lives (i.e., traffic, overcrowded schools, increased crime, etc.). Wouldn’t it be novel if the Town asked for a change instead of dictated?
Now, let’s get to the meat of the matter. The “Town” (those 7 elected and who knows how many appointed/paid employees who are privy to the deep dark secrets of Christiansburg) has a plan that specifically addresses (but not limited to) these issues (from the above Roanoke Times article):
Looks, like your guess is as good as mine on the other 15 target issues.
The rest of this article will review some of the history that the Town Council and Town Manager have when it comes to these areas.
Now, it is time for me to play a bit:)
Concering #1: Pursuing green initiatives.
What evidence is there to indicate the Town has done anything other than pay lip service in this area. There are a few references to greenspace where developments were discussed but where has the Town Codes done anything but the bare minimum, to meet State Codes?
Sure, a lot of developments have opted for trails rather than sidewalks in subdivisions. And, yes some of those trails do exist, but they don’t GO anywhere. They are a disconnected, dysfunctional mass of bits and pieces that do not do the ‘interconnectedness’ that they were supposed to accomplish. Maybe the Town has been carefully laying out this patchwork quilt project for years without telling anyone what they were doing, but right now, it just looks like a mass of scraps.
In the June 5, 2007 Town Council meeting minutes this reference can be found: “Town Manager Terpenny drew Council’s attention to a flier placed at each of their seats regarding green infrastructure in the New River Valley. The “Green Infrastructure Initiative” was created by the New River Valley Planning District Commission to educate communities in the New River Valley on how to maintain a network of green infrastructure for healthy and sustainable community growth. An information meeting for Christiansburg is scheduled for June 21 at the Montgomery County Government Center and is open to anyone interested in learning more about this topic. (If you want to know more about this Initiative there is a website with information. Perhaps a good place for our public officials to start would be the page that explains what Green Infrastructure is. It will certainly point out that this has NOT been a top priority of the Town of Christiansburg! There are also meeting agendas and minutes available to the public at the site.)
The June 19, 2007 Town Council Meeting had a representative from the NRVPDC come and give a presentation. This presentation included documents related to funding opportunity request.)
At that same June 19, 2007 meeting, the Town Council gave unanimous suupport to a Resolution for Green Infrastructure Grant where the NRVPDC would seek a U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Grant to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan.
October 2, 2007, Elizabeth Obenshain, representing the New River Land Trust explained how the town of Christiansburg could participate in that groups efforts to preserve land.
March 4, 2008 the ‘Go Green Virginia Initiative‘ was discussed. “Town Council was introduced to the Go Green Virginia initiative started by Governor Kaine and sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League. The initiative is a nationwide effort to conserve energy. Localities must register with VML to participate, and participants will be recognized for success in various areas included in the program. Three information workshops have been scheduled around the State, and the workshop closest to our area will be held in Abingdon on April 22, 2008. Councilman Wade commented that he attended a seminar on the Go Green Virginia initiative at the 2007 VML conference and he learned that localities are not only saving money by participating, but it is also resulting in better treatment of the environment. mayor Ballengee asked Council to spend some time reviewing the information they have received on the initiative and to be prepared to vote on the matter at the next Council meeting. At the March 18, 2008 meeting Council unanimously voted to participate in the Go Green Virginia Initiative sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League. Unfortunately, this late entry into the process meant that Christiansburg was not found in the 2008 Winners list or in the list of VML Certified Green Governments. I wonder if the Town will manage to make the Sept. 30, 2009 deadline for participating in the Challenge for 2009.
On Sept. 2, 2008 Town Council Minutes: “Go Green Virginia Initiative. Mayor Ballengee presented each Councilmember with a copy of the energy Efficiency Plan prepared for review. After reviewing, modifications will be made as necessary. A copy of the Energy Efficiency Plan is attached and made a part of these minutes.” Unfortunately, a copy of that document was not provided to me or on the website. (You need to remember that the Minutes provided at the Town’s website are only the notes of the meetings, the multitude of additional documents that Town Council are provided with are seldom seen by the public eye…this is one such example.)
Concerning #2: Walking trails and multiuse paths
Notice that these are walking trails and multiuse paths, not sidewalks. These have been discussed for years and have not been able to get accomplished. Why? Do to not getting the grants needed to do it, and Town Council’s unwillingness to part with money for something as mundane as trails and paths when they could get an Aquatic Center instead. Other ‘finds’ searching for the word ‘trail’ led to places where the first 5 letters of the word ‘trailer’ were identified.
In 2005, there was a Montgomery County Greenways and Pathways Committee that the Town had representation on. Where have there been any reports back to the Town Council concerning any ideas/issues raised by this group. Is the group even still meeting? All of the references to this committee found on the internet are dated in 2005 and 2006. At least Montgomery County has some information on Greenways, Open Space & Trail Design on their website. maybe the Town can get some ideas from there or the links on that site.
Sept. 16, 2008, Councilman Vanhoozier proposed a pathway along Cambria Street from Sleepy Hollow Road to the Recreation Center. A feasibility study was suggested and Mayor Ballengee directed this matter to the Town Managaer.
The Town Council Meeting Minutes are full of references to the Huckleberry Trail. Most of these were ideas and plans for which there was no intention on the part of the Town to fund. The Town is more than willing to let public donations and groups accomplish the task. They have shown a willingness to let individuals and groups write grants, but the Town has shown no initiative on its own to make these connections to a viable trail system a reality.
Concerning #3: Public Information??????? Community Relations??????
Oh, they so do not want to go there with ME!!!! Simply go through all the Town Council Minutes online at myvaresources.com and see how many times the very word “public” is used for anything other than as “Public Hearing” or “public utilities”.
Public information and community relations do not appear anywhere in the Town Council Meeting Minutes, so this obviously has not be a priority before now. There are a couple of references to the 18 months the Planning Commission worked diligently to develop the comprehensive plan with the public’s input. Well, we already know what that actually meant.
In the Sept. 6, 2005 Minutes it was noted that “Councilwoman Carter commented that recently much attention has been drawn to evacuation plans. She noted that Christiansburg has an evacuation plan, but that the public may not be aware that a plan is in place. Manager Terpenny replied that while Christiansburg does have an emergency operations plan, it is only direction for public officials on how to handle catastrophes and not a specif plan on how to evacuate citizens.”
Concerning #4: Revising the Zoning Ordinance
Over the years, there have been a very few revisions of the overall Zoning Ordinance. In fact, there are significant questions as to whether or not even the State minimum is being met. How effective is any revision of the Zoning Ordinance going to be if they do not do a revision of the Comprehensive Plan? Simply updated the Zoning Ordinance to be up-to-date with minimum State standards may not be what citizens want. Anyone can cut and paste the existing codes from other jurisdictions that are up-to-date and form a Zoning Ordinance. It takes a decent, citizen-based Comprehensive Plan to form the framework around which that Zoning Ordinance is built. If that is lacking, you will simply get ‘cherry picked’ pieces that town officials want in the Ordinance with no inclusion of the overall community!
Concerning #5: Promoting the new Aquatic Center
What’s been done so far?
April 6, 2004 Town Council Minutes: Resolution for the Department of Conservation and Recreation Grant to Fund a Trail Project to the Future Aquatic Center Site was unanimously approved by Town Council.
April 6, 2004 Ad-Hoc Committee for the Future Aquatic Center created.
May 4, 2004 Adoption of a Resolution for Commonwealth Transportation Board Recreational Access Fund for Future Aquatic Center – This request is for an access road grant to construct a roadway from Nnorth Franklin Street to the new aquatic center site. Unanimously approved.
October 19, 2004 “Regarding the Aquatic Center, Town Manager Terpenny requested that the Finance Committee allow fundraising projects to raise additional funds for a fifty-meter competition size pool. Radford University and Virginia Tech are interested in utilizing the pool if it is a fifty-meter pool. This could mean substantial revenue for the Town. The difference in the twenty-five meter pool and fifty-meter pool is approximately 2.5 million dollars. Mayor Linkous commented that plans are to move forward with the construction of a fifty-meter pool while contributions are being sought.
May 1, 2007 Town Council Meeting Minutes: “Town manager Terpenny said he was recently contacted by USA Swimming regarding possible contracted use of the facility. USA Swimming is willing to work around Virginia Tech’s scheduling. Projected opening of the facility is Fall 2008.”
On several occasions it has been pointed out that the Mayor has established a committee to elicit donations from businesses and/or individuals for money for the Aquatic Center. At the most recent town Council meeting, the Mayor admitted that these efforts have not been very successful. So much for the idea of promoting the Aquatic Center. The Town has not been successful at eliciting support from local businesses and citizens. Thankfully, the builder went beyond State borders and was able to find some financing for some of the most expensive embellishments on the Aquatic Center.
The Town has a long history of NOT promoting itself. It has depended upon other groups and governments to do that sort of thing for them, then sat back and complained about the results.
This seems to be a pretty major undertaking on the part of Town officials. They have decided what Christiansburg needs and wants, and they will be deciding how to accomplish those goals. Hopefully, they will also take the time to figure out HOW TO PAY FOR THEM!!!!
The Roanoke Times article speaks of hiring for a new Town position, Public Relations. Well, what about the Planning Staff that was in the budget? Is that position now being dumped although you acknowledged another Planner was necessary due to the work load? And, what about the money in the budget for Recodifying the Code. Neither the position nor the rfp for either of these has been advertised. Are you figuring that people will just forget that you have acknowledged there are problems that need to be dealt with simply because you put the money in the budget?
I got news for ya’ll: TALK IS CHEAP! All the empty rhetoric in the world will not convince voters. Let’s see some action. Quit talking and start doing! Oh, and by the way, doing it in front of the public rather than hiding behind emails, phone calls, and secret meetings would be a pretty nice way to start showing that you are really willing to change.
After all in that same Roanoke Times article:
“The vision for the town’s future states that in 2020, the goal is for Christiansburg to be known as a retail, commerce and tourist destination, a town of WELL-INFORMED AND ENGAGED CITIZENS, a recreational, cultural and entertainment Mecca, a green community, a clean, healthy and safe place to live, a model for effective land use, a sound financial entity and an interconnected community.
The long-range plan also touts the town’s downtown; the new Montgomery County courthouse; the national retailers, restaurants and hotels in the community; the aquatics center; the mix of residential, commercial and recreational land uses; and walking trails, multiuse paths and mass transit.”
Hey! But it’s all okay. Per the article, the Town Manager and his key staff are going over each of the vision items to determine how to accomplish them. Who the heck needs citizens involved? We have our government taking care of us….just like they have for decades now….and people are so…so…very happy with the results of that!
On October 4, 2005, the Town Council of Christiansburg, VA, heard a tear jerker of an appeal from Town Manager Lance Terpenny. The Town Manager put forth a request for a budget amendment for New and Improved fancy Finance Software. According to the report, over the course of 3 years, 3 different RFP’s for Utility/Financial/Information Management Software were posted. It was not until the 3rd attempt (3 years of waiting?) before some responses came in that qualified for review. A committee of selected Town Staff and the Town’s computer consultants reviewed the applicants and recommended Cogsdale Corporation provide the Town with the needed software. The software was to allow for communication between departments, helping with delinquent tax payments and greatly increasing the efficiency of each department. UNFORTUNATELY, the $200,000 set aside in the Budget for this acquisition fell short of the mark. Manager Terpenny requested an additional $160,090.00 for a full negotiated price of $360,090. The negotiated cost included the software, installation, training, and support. Administration Officer, Scot Shippee, commented that this is a leased software program and updates and maintenance will cost approximately $30,000 per year. It was noted by the Town Manager that this does not require a Public Hearing, but does require two readings.
On October 18, 2005, the Town Council revisited this matter:
COUNCIL ACTION ON BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FINANCE SOFTWARE. Town Manager Terpenny briefed Council on this matter discussed at the October 4, 2005 meeting. He added that this software would also allow the Town to accept credit card payments, and make electronic direct deposits for employees. Councilman Ashworth made a motion to approve tlie budget amendment to allow the purchase of the finance software. Councilman Barber seconded the motion and Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth. Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. NAYS: None.
Okay…so the Town has this super duper software package that it has leased for $360,090 that is suppose to make like wonderful, yet I hear the Mayor say it is too complex to give a report that is any more complex than this amount went to this person/company (without any explanation of what it is for????). What in the heck????
And just exactly how much of that total cost and the ongoing annual fees of $30,000 per year were wasted on a system to accept credit card payments that almost 4 years later has not been implemented?
There, Mr., Mrs, or Ms. taxpayer you now have a prime example of your tax money at work. As you’re thinking about that remember that it was the Town Council’s role to approve or disapprove based upon the recommendations of the Town Manager. It was the Town Manager’s role to see that the entire system was implemented. Heck! Maybe the Town Manager will get another raise this year because he is so efficient and necessary. Guess we’ll find out when his contract come up for renewal in September.
I don’t doubt the vendor’s product was well worth the price. But, why in the heck use other people’s money to by a Mercedes when a Ford (or a bus token!!!) would work as well??? I sure hope to goodness this new finance officer can get the most back for taxpayer buck out of the program. Of course, I’ve heard a rumor that she is quite adept at establishing her own programs at…duh…no extra cost to taxpayers!!!!
Staff Analysis is a written document prepared by members of a Planning Dept. to help Planning Commissioners and Town Council members understand all of the issues related to any change in zoning status of a parcel of land (zoning, rezoning, conditional use permit, etc.) These are documents routinely provided to the Planning Commission in every jurisdiction that I have been able to contact within the State of Virginia, except the Town of Christiansburg. (Let it be know that these documents were, in the past, prepared by the Planning Dept. of the Town of Christiansburg but staff was told to stop producing them.
Please note that this document is part of the official record and as such should be included in any minutes of the Town Council where decisions were made. Hmmmm….I’ve got about $1,200.00 worth of documents from the Town thus far. Guess what I don’t have? You got it. There is not one copy of a Staff Analysis in all of those Meeting Minutes, Ordinances, etc.
So, my questions now become: (1) “If those documents were prepared, who were they provided to? (2) If they were provided to anyone, did they ever get into the hands of the decision-makers (Town Council)? (3) If they were provided to those decision-makers, why were they NOT included in the official documents? (4) Did Town Council make the decision to stop having those documents provided? (5) If the answer to (4) is no, then WHO did? (5) Why was the practice discontinued?
At the July 21 Town Council Meeting, the topic of staff analysis reports was brought up yet again. Henry Showalter, supported by Ann Carter, Michael Barber, and Jim Vanhoozier, noted that such a report would be very helpful in enabling them to make the best possible decisions for citizens.
While it may be brought up again, the door was all but slammed in their faces when the Mayor essentially turned the matter of deciding over to the Town Manager based upon whether the Town has enough staff to do the job!
Hello! If the Town does not have enough staff to do the jobs they should be doing, then just what the heck is going on???? AND, what is being done about it!!!! Trying to save people a few bucks of tax money when you are costing them a heck of a lot more in decreased property values, decreased quality of life, and increased insurance (just to name a few)…..we should thank you for this?????? Do you really think citizens are that stupid???? Well guess what, we’re not. We can see the $$$$ on the wall!!!!
We apparently do not have enough staff to do inspections concerning erosion and sediment control (even at our own Aquatic Center). We don’t have enough staff for the Planning Department to do what they use to do but stopped doing? We do not have enough staff to insure that elected and appointed officials are provided with all appropriate information necessary to make important decisions?
Mr. Mayor, perhaps in education you found it appropriate to just stop having math or science taught because you didn’t have enough staff? I’ll just bet the parents and School Board would love that approach! Or maybe you’d decide not to send an ambulance out to a vehicle accident because there might be too much work to do? Or, perhaps you would tell the Police Chief not to send an officer out to work an intersection where a traffic light was out because there just aren’t enough officers?????
I doubt it! I think you would take those things pretty seriously and deal with the issues as needed. Well, the issue of landuse is pretty darned serious. The issue of stormwater is pretty darned serious. There issue of codes enforcement is pretty darned serious.
Mr. Mayor, I think it is time to get serious about your responsibilities to the Town. It is not the Town Manager people are coming to with issues. It is not the Town Manager that people elected to represent them. It is not the Town Manager who decides the menu at those Town Council meetings. Let’s start dealing with issues rather than ducking them.
Is it time to change or is it time for change? Guess you are the decider on that part of the equation. Of course, you can sit back, do nothing, be non-commital, pass the buck, and wait for election time to come around. Maybe citizens are already looking around for your replacement since rumor has it you won’t run again. Is that why you don’t seem to care any more?
For more reading on the staff analysis debate:
Christiansburg, VA Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater/Flooding….Interesting Reading
Why is a Staff Analaysis a good thing for Planning Commission and Town Council to have?
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
A good use of property but a very bad way to allow it to happen. Rezoning from R-2 to B-3
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.
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:
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:)
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.
New River News A Tale of Two Burgs New River Journal Blog Washington Post: The Answer Sheet (Education) Roanoke Times Round Table Blog
