Action | Amendments to statewide permit fee schedule and to improve the administration and implementation of fees |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 8/21/2009 |
Representatives with the City of
The City of
Furthermore, the Commonwealth continues to pass-on federally mandated regulation and compliance requirements on to local governments without giving localities adequate resources and authority to execute these mandates. The Commonwealth would be better served to work closely with the localities in a partnering relationship as opposed to a regulator/regulated environment that fails to produce noticeable results in water quality improvement.
Outlined below are further comments reflecting specific concerns and recommendations associated with the proposed regulations.
Comment: The proposed regulations, that increase the stringency of the technical criteria for redevelopment, doubling phosphorus reduction from current regulations, create a financial disincentive to redevelop urban areas, especially small infill lots, and encourages sprawl. A cost benefit analysis performed for the region found that it was thirty times more expensive to remove one pound of phosphorus from redeveloped projects compared to new development. DCR regulations should not conflict with redevelopment of existing lots for social, land use, transportation and environmental reasons. An offsite pollutant load reduction alternative or “offset” that has been proposed in lieu of on-site controls is not feasible for urban localities such as
Recommendation: The City of
Comment: The proposed regulations appear to combine the technical criteria for post construction storm water with the administration of the Construction General Permit. Currently the City of
Recommendation: Separate the administration of the Construction General Permit from the technical requirements. Require contractors to obtain the Construction General Permit prior to land disturbance activity verses during the site plan review process.
Comment: Proposed Construction General Permit fee collection and administration will require substantial procedural changes and internal reorganization. It may also place an unnecessary burden and expense on property owners/developers prior to land disturbance activity occurring. Properties approved within the City of
Recommendation: Establish the statewide fee structure for the General Construction Permit issuance; however allow the local government the ability to implement the program at their own schedule. Establish the fee structure so that payment and issuance of the permit is prior to land disturbance activity, not during site plan review. Also, add a grandfathering clause to the proposed regulations that address those sites that have been approved under the current regulations, but developed under the new regulations.
Comment: The Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) specifications and removal efficiencies do not take into account the unique physical challenges faced in the Tidewater Region, (i.e. high ground water table, flat topography, submerged outfalls, etc.) The proposed technical criteria also do not address pollutants of concern for impaired waters within Tidewater such as bacteria or nitrogen.
The criteria also encourage environmentally sensitive designs (ESD). Most of the means to address these criteria proposed in the new technical criteria will not to be feasible in
Recommendation: DCR should consider an adjusted technical criteria for the Coastal Plain that addresses these unique challenges. DCR should move forward with approval of that portion of the regulations that address the Construction General Permit; however continue to develop and improve the technical criteria through a Technical Advisory Committee to address the issues outlined above prior to approval and implementation of the proposed regulations.
Comment: The Economic Analysis associated with the proposed regulations addresses the unknown costs associated with the implementation of the proposed regulations with unknown significant water quality improvements. In light of current economic conditions, required fees associated with the implementation of these proposed regulations may cause a significant hardship on local taxpayers. DCR has failed to take into account the financial burden associated with the pending Total Maximum Daily Load requirements. The costs associated with the start up programs to address the proposed regulations will be paid for up front by the local government prior to the collection of the General Construction Permit fees
Recommendation: The City requests DCR review the fee structure to ensure local governments are given the time to establish or modify necessary programs. Also the City is requesting an increased fee percentage during the initial start up period to recoup the initial costs associated with the programs being brought on line prior to the fee collection beginning.
Although, the City realizes that these proposed regulations are a step in the right direction to improve the water quality and quantity issues, we cannot support the regulations as currently proposed due to the extensive limitations placed on redevelopment and burden placed on tax payers within
We look forward to continue working with DCR to address the above-noted concerns and to continue improving the regulations to the benefit of the Commonwealth.