Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
 
Board
State Water Control Board
 
Guidance Document Change: A “common plan of development or sale” (CPOD) is defined in the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management (VESM) Regulation as a “contiguous area where separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules.” The purpose of this guidance memorandum is to 1) provide clarification where the Department of Environmental Quality is the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) or Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program (VESMP) Authority on the legal authority, application, and interpretation of “common plan of development or sale” 2) to assist in the determination of when a CGP is required and when an agreement in lieu of a plan may be used; and 3) provide scenarios that demonstrate this information where DEQ is the VSMP or VESMP Authority.

2 comments

All comments for this forum
Back to List of Comments
1/28/26  2:21 pm
Commenter: Anonymous

CPOD Guidance
 

Section I of the guidance document does not include VDOT scenarios. Contractors are required to obtain their own off-site areas that VDOT has no responsibility for. Per the R&B Specifications Section 107.02 and 107.16, contractors are responsible for securing separate CGP permit coverage (e.g. from local VSMP Authority) as required, for offsite support activities including for disposal of soil. This does not guarantee that the area will be more than 0.25 miles away from the VDOT permitted project. 

It would be pertinent to include information as it relates to VDOT, even if it is just in scenarios. 

Example:

On a span of road there are 2 bridges that will be replaced. East bound and west bound lane. They have separate funding sources. Would that be considered a common plan? 

CommentID: 239050
 

2/3/26  8:24 am
Commenter: Brian R. Stokes

CPOD Scenario Clarification
 

Scenario 1. of this proposed guidance memo cites and example of a builder with 3 lots "immediately adjacent to each other". I understand the relevance of "immediately adjacent to each other" and agree with the outcome however what would be the outcome of this scenario  if the same builder was constructing on 3 lots, collectively disturbing greater than 1ace that were not immediately adjacent to each other? Would CGP coverage no longer be required? A singular builder constructing multiple lots at the same time is a very real scenario, and should not be treated as proposed scenario 2. Additional clarification to scenario 1 would be appreciated.

CommentID: 239407