HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - R-02-022 - 11/18/2002 - RECOMMEND CHANGES TO MCH CO WATERSHED ORDINANCE ANR-02-022
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF McHENRY
A Resolution Recommending Changes to the McHenry County
Watershed Development Ordinance and Technical Reference Manual
WHEREAS, the County of McHenry ("County") established a McHenry County Stormwater
Committee ("Committee") to draft a McHenry County Watershed Development Ordinance,
which includes a Technical Reference Manual ("Ordinance"), that would be applicable to both
unincorporated and incorporated property throughout McHenry County; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that uniform and consistent enforcement is needed
throughout the County and is requiring that municipalities adopt standards that are, at a
minimum, as stringent as the Ordinance or be required to follow the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, local officials recognize the need for stormwater regulations and wetlands
protection and most municipalities with the County have adopted the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission's ("NIPC") Model Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance, as well
as NIPC's model ordinances regulating soil erosion and sediment control and stream and wetland
protection; and
WHEREAS, the draft Ordinance has been presented to the public and public officials and their
professional staff, including Registered Professional Engineers who are proficient in the subject
matter of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, said municipal professionals recognize the spirit of the Ordinance but, after careful
study and consideration, have determined that its impact has overstepped its original purpose
and, in many instances, will require unnecessary expense and hardship for many property owners
within the County; and
WHEREAS, local officials also question the authority of the County to require stricter standards
than their local Ordinances, which are based on the NIPC model Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, while the City of McHenry ("City") understands the underlying purpose for
drafting the Ordinance, it is apparent that municipal laws were not taken into consideration; and
WHEREAS, after careful study of the Ordinance, the City has prepared a list of
recommendations for the Ordinance before the Committee brings the Ordinance to the County
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of McHenry,
McHenry County, Illinois, that if the County moves forward with the adoption of the Ordinance,
the following recommendations should be incorporated into the Ordinance:
1. In the recent public meetings, you indicated that after the November 7, 2002 Public
Hearing, the Stormwater Committee would discuss amendments and recommend the
County Board to approve the amended Ordinance. You did not indicate whether the
County will hold an additional Public Hearings on the amended document. We request
an additional Public Hearing be held to present the amended document to the public.
2. In the recent public meetings, the presenters indicated that certain requirements of the
Ordinance are optional or can be interpreted on a case by case basis. Because of the
difficulty involved in consistent enforcement of a countywide Ordinance, we feel that as
much as possible, the Ordinance should be interpreted as it is written. Therefore, our
comments are based on the written draft Ordinance. -
3. To the best of our knowledge, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has not
reviewed drafts of the proposed Ordinance since the TAC was dissolved in early 1998.
We recommend the TAC be re -activated and requested to review the proposed Ordinance
in detail.
4. The ordinance appears to regulate streambank stabilization in the same manner as other
channel modifications. In order to reduce the added costs to such beneficial projects
(which are typically under -funded), streambank stabilization projects should be exempt
from the permitting process or "fast -tracked" via a countywide Permit.
5. Article II (page 7): The definition for Flood Protection Elevation (FPE) requires three
feet of freeboard above the base flood elevation. This requirement appears to be
excessive. We recommend that Ordinance require one foot of freeboard as required by
the FEMA Floodplain Regulations.
6. Article II (page 8): The definition for Isolated Waters of McHenry County only
excludes permitted excavations. In our experience, the majority of excavations, including
roadside ditches, do not have a recorded Permit. This definition should be modified to
also exclude non -permitted excavations that are located in areas of mapped upland soils.
We recommend that you refer to the Army Corps definition of Waters of the United
States, which can be found in the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 219, Part 328.
For your reference, we have included a copy of this definition as an attachment.
7. Article III, Section A (page 15): In order to ensure that Ordinance is consistently
enforced by people with knowledge of the Ordinance, the County should consider a
methodology for Enforcement Officers certification. Additionally, since Enforcement
Officers of certified communities will also be required to review wetlands related issues,
the County should maintain a list of qualified wetlands specialists.
8. Article III, Section D.5 (page 17): The Ordinance requires a performance bond equal
to 150 percent of the estimated construction cost of the stormwater management system.
Many of the municipalities in McHenry County currently require Bonds or Letters of
Credit to guarantee completion of the stormwater management system and other public
improvements. The typical percent required is 110 to 125 percent of the estimated cost.
We suggest that certified communities be allowed to set the percentage.
2
9. Article III, Section D.9 (page 18): It is unclear whether inspections will be required of
such items as wetland delineations, topographical surveys and watershed tributary area
investigations. The Committee should clarify the level of detail expected from the
Enforcement Officer. Additionally, the Ordinance currently requires a minimum of three
inspections of all development projects, including minor developments. In our opinion,
this inspection requirement will significantly increase the time and cost of small
developments. This section also indicates that the permittee's engineer must indicate that
the project is completed in accordance with the Ordinance. This would require a
Professional Engineer to sign off on minor developments. We are concerned that these
requirements are overly burdensome, time consuming and expensive for 300 square feet
of development.
10. Article IV, Section A.4 (page 20): By this definition, the majority of private,
residential projects will require a Watershed Development Permit for approval. Since no
detention is required for minor development, this level of enforcement has no effect on
prevention of cumulative impacts, which is the goal of the Ordinance. In our opinion,
this criterion for regulated development should be deleted from the Ordinance. We
would endorse a minimum threshold for regulated development at 5,000 square feet or
more of hydrologic disturbance.
11. Article IV, Section A.5 (page 20): By this definition, all development will be
considered regulated development, because even the most minor work will result in
changing the quantity, rate or direction of stormwater runoff. In our opinion, this section
should be deleted from the Ordinance.
12. Article IV, SectionE.3 (page 22): The Ordinance requires that the application package
be denied if it is not approved or denied within 30 calendar days of the latest item
submitted. In our opinion, this schedule should only be required of the County, and the
certified communities should be allowed to set their own review periods. Additionally, in
order to provide incentive for a prompt review from the County and reduce the potential
need for re -submittals, we suggest that the Ordinance be modified to state that the
application be approved if it is not approved or denied within 30 calendar days of the
latest item submitted.
13. Article V, Section B (page 24): The Ordinance includes a statement relative to
public road developments that result in less than 1.5 acres of new impervious area or less
than the rate of 1.5 acres of new impervious area per linear mile. The Ordinance should
also specifically address public road developments over this threshold. In our opinion,
public road developments over this threshold will have an even more difficult time
meeting the requirements of the Ordinance and should be given the same consideration as
development under the threshold.
14. Article VI. Section A (page 64): The application requirements for minor
developments do not require proper expertise. For instance, the Ordinance requires a
grading plan showing proposed and existing contours for minor developments; however,
the ordinance does not require the plan to be prepared by a licensed Engineer or
M
Surveyor. Because the Ordinance does not require the application requirements to be
prepared or reviewed by licensed professionals, there is no way to verify the accuracy of
the submittal.
15. Article I, Section A (page 3): Administration and enforcement of the Ordinance
should be performed by either the certified community or the Stormwater Committee, not
both.
16. Article II (page 4): Definitions should be included for redevelopment, wetland
impacts, temporary erosion control, permanent erosion control, roadside ditches, and
perennial water resources.
17. Article II (page 4): The definition of "channel" as it is currently written includes any
conduit or culvert in which surface or groundwater flows. This would include storm
sewers. The definition of "channel" also includes lakes and depressional storage. This
definition should be modified so that storm sewers, lakes and depressional storage are
excluded in the definition of channel.
18. Article II (page 6): Exempted development includes resurfacing of roadways that
results in no increase in road elevation. How is increase of elevation defined? A typical
road resurfacing may result in an increase of 1-3 inches over the existing road. In our
opinion, this increase of road elevation should not require a Permit.
19. Article IV, Section A (page 20): Development which results in wetland impacts
should be included as regulated development.
20. Article IV, Section F.1 (page 22): The two year term for Permits is not sufficient for
large developments. Does subsection 3 allow for unlimited six month extensions of the
same Permit?
21. Article V, Section A.5 (page 24): As it is written, this section would eliminate the
ability of communities to issue Building Permits for model homes.
22. Article V, Section B.3.d.(12) (page 31): This section refers to a channel maintenance
easement. The Ordinance should identify the owner of the easement.
23. Article V, Section C.Le (page 31): In this section, the Ordinance states that
temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to disturbed areas within 10 days of the end
of "active soil disturbance". Please clarify this term as it relates to a development that
uses the mass gradinglexcavating construction method. After completion of the mass
grading work, the developer typically installs the underground utilities and roads. During
this time period, "active soil disturbance" continues. The Ordinance should clarify the
requirements of the developer relative to temporary soil stabilization.
24. Article V, Section C.21(2) (page 32): The sizing of the sediment trap required by
this section of the Ordinance appears to be excessive. We recommend that this section of
GI
the Ordinance be checked to confirm whether this section contains a typographical error.
We request information on how the required sizing was calculated.
25. Article V, Section D.4.h (page 39): This section limits the community's ability to
provide detention facilities and water quality improvements appropriate for specific
projects. The Ordinance should set a performance standard instead of dictating a
particular design that may not meet the multiple goals of a community.
26. Article V, Section D.8.c (page 42): The current wording of this section is unclear. We
recommend that this section be reworded to refer to structures adjacent to an overland
flow path.
27. Article V, Section E.l.b.(3) (Page 43): In order to allow for the acceptance of new
computer models by the IDNR, we recommend that the Ordinance does not list specific
computer models and methods for the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the BFE.
Instead, we recommend that the Ordinance state that the technique must be approved by
the IDNR/OWR.
28. Article V, Section E. Lb.(3) (page 43): The Ordinance requires that if no BFE
information exists, all BFE determinations must be submitted to MCSC for approval. We
recommend the Ordinance allow BFE determinations for non-reverine depressional
floodplains with less than 20 acres of tributary drainage area be reviewed and approved
by the Enforcement Officer in certified communities.
29. Article V, Section E.8.h (page 56): The Ordinance should include a requirement that
necessary Permits from the USACOE be obtained prior to construction of temporary
crossings of streams and waterways.
30. Article VI, Section C.2 (page 67): The Ordinance requires the same application
requirements for both intermediate and major developments. In our opinion, these
categories should be grouped together as one.
31. Per State Legislation 55 ILCS 515 — 1062 Section 5-1062 Stormwater Management (b):
A Stormwater Management Planning Committee shall be established by County Board
Resolution, with its membership consisting of equal numbers of County Board and
municipal representatives from each County Board District, and such other members as
may be determined by the county and municipal members.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the position of the City of McHenry's Council that a
more effective Ordinance be developed by including representatives from all the municipalities
within the County and said representatives would be active participants and bringing the
Ordinance to a more equitable level of effectiveness and acceptance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this Resolution be sent to each member
of the Committee, the McHenry County Board, the McHenry County Clerk, the McHenry
County State's Attorney and McHenry County Department of Planning and Development
Director.
DATED this day of
APPROVED:
A-r1 I�rr'
Mayor • /
CI