This has just passed the House and as with the Health Care bill, has been defanged there (although maybe not as badly as the Health Care bill). Now, it is up to the Senate.

The Richmond Sunlight’s Bill Tracking page for this bill shows two versions. The original and the eviscerated version that will proceed. The original bill is HB619 and the version as modified and passed by the House is HB619E. The Richmond Sunlight’s information on the right side of the page explains how to find the changes (they are either highlighted {shown as underlined below} if something is added,or have a line through them if something is deleted

The original change draws a clear line that identifies the first fine ($100) and each additional fine ($1000). The new, upgraded version allows for the locality to pick a figure between $100 & $1000 on each and every violation (each day constitutes a different violation). On the surface this may seem better, however, there is a lot of room for a ‘hitch in the get-a-long’ of this UNLESS this is (1) incorporated into the jurisdictions ordinance and (2) is applied in the same way to each and every violator.

If the violator is a simple citizen clearing an area of his/her backyard for a garage or shed, as opposed to a big development, I can see where you may want some latitude. This new version makes it easy for local government to make an uneven playing field by treating ‘friends’ or ‘family’ or ‘good old boys/girls’ differently from other people when the overall situations may be exactly the same. But, hey! We all know that kind of stuff doesn’t happen, right? There is no way any local jurisdiction in Virginia would slap a civil fine of $100 on someone who is a friend of one of the Supervisors/Council members and a $1000 fine on someone else that someone didn’t like or was new to the area, etc. We all know that codes are fairly and equally applied in the area of enforcement. I can see where this could get interesting.

Take the time to go to the Richmond Sunlight site and look at the changes between those two bill (just click on the View Full Text link). Take time to vote on what you think while you’re there. If you have feelings about this, either pro or con, now is the time to start contacting your State Senator and let him/her know what you think and what you would like to see happen. I would prefer that the fee be based upon the amount of surface area involved so that those doing the most damage will pay the highest fees. I would also like to see that the money collected for this would be mandated to be used for restoration efforts. But…that’s just my opinion.

Wonder what, if anything, the Town of Christiansburg will do with this if it passes at the State level.

Maybe I’m weird (yeah…yeah..yeah…some of you are already convinced of that), but I would have thought that would have been at least vaguely mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting on this, or perhaps even at the time the Conditional Use Permit was applied for? Videos of these meetings are available at myvaresources.com.

At the next Planning Commission Meeting, this should be addressed again (unless the applicant pulls it) and then it would go before the Town Council at their next meeting.

Since the issue in question has to do with the setback requirements needing to be at least the height of the tower according to the Town Code when discussion had indicated that 30′ from street and 45′ from other buildings was adequate for a 150′ tower. (Maybe not when the Code specifies a setback that is at least the height of the tower.)

I figured I would just do a bit of research on the issue. Rather than go into all of the details here, I set up a .pdf file as a primer for anyone interested in learning more. There is a brief introduction, then a history that includes a review of Planning Commission and Town Council Meeting Minutes concerning all discussions involving cell towers. Then, I went into the Comprehensive Plan and the Town Code for specifics. This primer is available at the Special Sudies Page of myvaresources.com just click on the link “Citizen’s Cell Tower Primer”. (Look for more such documents in the future.)

The Town Code section gives all the information needed to devise a checklist to see if all of the necessary steps have been followed.

One solution that was presented by Planning Director, Randy Wingfield, was that the Town could simply change the Code. Huh? Say, do what?

Well, let’s think about that possibility for a moment. What if the Town changed the Code so that a 35′ setback was adequate. How many places are there in Christiansburg where someone owns property that they would like to make some money from. The companies who rent space for those towers pay pretty darned well. Of course, unless they change some other parts of the Code, only Agricultural and Industrial I & II properties would be possible locations. Since most of the Agricultural land has been scarfed up for developments, what little there is left is often surrounded by rather high density housing. As to the Industrial I & II locations, well gosh, they’re surrounded by residential areas too.

How many of you want to have a view that includes a closeup and personal perspective of a cell tower? Right now, they are talking about one property. Any discussion of changing the Town Codes could affect a lot of other properties. What happens to property values around such facilities? What about research concerning health and safety hazards? How will the required safety lighting affect you?

There are a lot of issues to be addressed that are mentioned in the .pdf file I setup. Not the least of these is a commitment to work on a regional approach to the installation of these structures so that there is a minimal negative impact. (A copy of this regional agreement is included in the text.)

Times are hard. People need money, the Town needs money. But we MUST think about the long term impacts of such decision on everyone, not just a few. The potential impact on property values, insurance, health, safety, and well being of citizens must be acknowledged during any decision-making process.

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.