|
||||
|
|
||||
|
MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORUM MEETING LUGM MIDDLE CONFERENCE ROOM * CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Dan Burris at APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of OLD BUSINESS
Continue discussion regarding water and sewer service for developments in the RPD containing 24 lots or more and Discuss CWSP procedures for site plans
Mr. Guyther opened the discussion by stating a concept site plan should be reviewed and approved at the time the Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan (CWSP) category is changed. Mr. Parlett agreed and noted an applicant currently goes before the Planning Commission three times before receiving final concept site plan approval. He stated the CWSP rules should be changed to allow concurrent approval of the category change and the site plan. Mr. Canavan explained he will try to get the state law changed to allow the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) the ability to delegate authority to the Planning Director for CWSP category changes. Mr. Parlett said he thought this was allowed and asked when the state law changed. Mr. Canavan replied the law has not changed but has likely been misinterpreted; thus, he will try to get the language clarified to allow the BOCC to delegate this authority if they wish. He explained, in addition to this effort, staff plans to bring an updated CWSP plan before the BOCC for adoption next spring. He noted the current CWSP has not been reviewed since 1993 and has been amended piecemeal in the meantime. A new CWSP will diminish the number of future amendments needed. Mr. Shire noted in 2005 there were 15 amendments to the CWSP and he explained each amendment requires three appearances before the Planning Commission and two appearances before the BOCC. Mr. Canavan declared the goal is to accomplish both a change in legislation and adoption of a new CWSP by spring 2007. Mr. Guyther questioned the requirement for every subdivision of more than 24 lots to connect to a public water system and he noted this issue needs to be addressed in the new CWSP. He feels it is sometimes better for a developer to install a private water system for the subdivision than to hook to public facilities. Mr. Parlett agreed with Mr. Guyther and added the current process to approve connection to public facilities is too involved. Mr. Burris asked for additional discussion. Mr. Parlett reiterated the site plan approval procedures needs to be changed. Mr. Shire explained this process is outlined in the CWSP and not in the Ordinance. Mr. Parlett expressed concern the site plan generally does not change after a CWSP category change, so the same site plan is often submitted twice. He asked again if it is possible to allow amendment of the CWSP and approval of the concept plan simultaneously. Mr. Shire explained different findings are required for each. Mr. Parlett noted approval of both at the same time will reduce staff time, the engineers’ time and the number of meetings. Mr. Shire said there is nothing in writing that states they can’t both be reviewed at the same time. Mr. Ichniowski suggested the Planning Commission recommend approval of a concept site plan subject to approval by the BOCC of the CWSP category change. Mr. Shire noted this could be a risk for developments in the RPD. Mr. Canavan explained the Planning Commission must make the finding that the site plan will be served by adequate public facilities (APF) in order to approve a concept site plan; however, they can’t make this finding if the CWSP has not been amended yet. He suggested wording it as a “condition upon BOCC approval” that, if the CWSP category is changed by the BOCC, then the Planning Commission would reach a positive outcome on the findings of APF. Mr. Russell agreed the current process needs to be changed. Mr. Canavan explained this issue is correctible with an updated CWSP. Mr. Burris summarized the steps staff plans to take as follows: first, check with the Attorney General regarding delegation under the current state law; second, work on clarifying the law to allow delegation by the BOCC for CWSP category changes; third, get an updated CWSP approved. Mr. Canavan pointed out an updated CWSP will be brought before the BOCC regardless of whether or not they decide to delegate authority over amendments. Mr. Dorsey suggested property owners in the LPDD be given a time frame in which they can hook to public water and sewer. He discussed the waivers recently enacted by Metcom, which are required to dig a private well or septic system in the LPDD. Mr. Dorsey explained developments in the LPDD should automatically receive a waiver when it becomes cost-prohibitive to hook to public water and sewer. He expressed concern the waiver process is cumbersome and takes a long time. Mr. Canavan said the waiver issue needs to be reviewed again. Mr. Ichniowski agreed the process is too lengthy and complicated. Mr. Guyther asked if waivers can be issued using a standard formula rather than on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Canavan replied the original purpose of the waiver is defeated if Metcom uses a linear distance to decide which developments are required to connect. He explained all property owners should be given the option to apply for a waiver and connection requirements should depend on what will be needed for the development and how much it will cost the property owner. Continue discussion of Critical Area permits data and review process
Mr. Canavan stated Harry Knight, Permits Coordinator for LUGM, ran recent statistical Critical Area permits data. There were 772 Critical Area permit reviews conducted in the last year. Mr. Canavan stated 189 Critical Area permits were entered in the last 60 days and 88 of those were approved. Of the 101 still pending, 85 were received in the last 30 days and 18 of those are awaiting approval by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Mr. Canavan explained he asked staff to graph the Critical Area permits data and he will bring this information to a future meeting. He noted the backlog has diminished. Mr. Parlett asked if staff will prepare a list of permits and note the number of days until each permit receives approval so the Forum members can easily see the average permit turnaround time. Mr. Canavan noted statistical data for the current year will be applied next year to help diminish the turnaround time of Critical Area permits by matching staff to specific permit review tasks. Mr. Burris asked if the increased number of Critical Area permits received in the last 30 days is the result of damage by tropical storm Ernesto. Mr. Canavan replied this could be the case and noted any permits for storm related repairs, especially those for revetments, are being pushed through the review process faster. NEW BUSINESS
Discuss MDE delegation of authority to the County for soil erosion and sediment control inspections
Mr. Young stated the BOCC approved an amendment to the Sediment Control Plan Review Fee Schedule for the Soil Conservation District (SCD). He explained SCD asked for an increase in the standard plan fee from $20 to $50, but the BOCC only approved an increase to $35. Mr. Young stated the BOCC discussed requesting delegation of erosion and sediment control inspections and enforcement from MDE. The BOCC would like the Forum to make a recommendation on this issue. Mr. Young explained the request for delegation from MDE must occur in October of each year and MDE will allow either partial or full delegation. Mr. Canavan handed out a memo prepared by George Erichsen, director of the Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), stating their position on this issue. He explained St. Mary’s County only has one MDE inspector at this time and that inspector must travel from Mr. Young explained MDE cannot charge inspector fees to perform inspections and they often don’t make it to small disturbances because they only have time to inspect larger sites. SCD can charge fees; however, it is cost-prohibitive for SCD to take over inspections at this point. In addition, the MDE cannot delegate authority to SCD to impose fines or penalties for violations. On the other hand, the County can accept both inspection and enforcement authority and can charge fees for the inspections. Mr. Young stated MDE delegated authority to SCD to conduct pre-construction meetings and they will become mandatory for all developments starting October 1st. SCD will contact all interested agencies prior to the meetings so they can have a representative present. Mr. Young explained applicants will be charged a fee for the meeting. MDE will receive a copy of the meeting notes and will impose maximum penalties on any developer who deviates from the accepted plan. Mr. Shire asked if the meetings are for commercial or residential developments. Mr. Young replied any development that has an erosion and sediment control plan will require a pre-construction meeting. Mr. Ichniowski returned discussion to the issue of inspection authority and stated the BOCC needs to see what the financial impact to the consumer will be if the County obtains delegation. He explained there will be increased costs to hire the four inspectors recommended by MDE, including: salaries for each inspector, vehicles, gas, supplies and support staff. Mr. Parlett asked if the County will actually need four inspectors to take over the work from MDE. Mr. Guyther replied these inspections take a lot of time. He explained the current LUGM inspectors cannot take on the additional work load that will be required for inspecting and resolving problems, even though they already visit the sites. Mr. Canavan expressed concern there is not enough space for additional inspectors at LUGM and he restated his position the cost implications of hiring inspectors should be brought before the BOCC before the County accepts delegation from MDE. Mr. Young pointed out the County will face legal issues and associated costs if delegation is accepted. Mr. Canavan agreed the County will be subject to legal ramifications if the job is not done correctly. Mr. Ichniowski noted the County will probably need a supervisor for the four inspectors because of the potential legal liability. Mr. Young stated Mr. Canavan concluded he will work with Mr. Young on an updated cost analysis for partial delegation and bring the information before the Forum and the BOCC. He stated MDE asked for a decision by mid-October but the County will not ask for full delegation this year. The County may consider partial delegation next year. Discuss site plan and subdivision plan data submission to LUGM for mapping purposes
Mr. Canavan explained there are provisions in the subdivision regulations that state if plans or subdivision plats are prepared in digital form, then the digital form will be submitted to staff. The purpose for this is to create a better mapping layer in the GIS system. Mr. Canavan explained surveyors and engineers who do not currently prepare plans and plats in digital form are resistant to submitting this information due to cost implications. Because of this, staff asked these surveyors and engineers to submit GPS coordinates. When this request was also met with resistance, Mr. Canavan offered to allow staff to make site visits to obtain the GPS coordinates. This is still not happening because many professionals are reluctant to put their signatures on information they did not prepare themselves. Mr. Canavan explained staff hosted a meeting to get feedback on why many engineers and surveyors are reluctant to provide this data. He will prepare a discussion paper based on the feedback received and bring it before the Forum to get suggestions on how to address the concerns. He stressed this information is crucial to build a better mapping system; therefore, data submitted for this purpose does not have to be signed. Mr. Ichniowski asked if similar information is submitted digitally in other jurisdictions. Mr. Canavan replied yes, it is routine in many other jurisdictions.
Announcement
Mr. Young announced SCD entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to hire an individual with a Professional Engineering license for the NEXT MEETING The following items were requested to be placed on the · Update on site plan and subdivision plan data submission to LUGM for mapping purposes · Update on pre-construction meetings progress from Bruce Young
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at The next meeting is scheduled for ______________________________________ Cindy R. Koestner Recording Secretary Approved: October 18, 2006 ______________________________________ Billy Higgs Chairperson |