[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT Task 54 Strmwtr Mgt. Pog. & Ord. Q~~d~ Program Development Manual for a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program Gloucester County, Virginia March 1994 VCRMP Grant Program FY 1992-1993 This document was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council an the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant # NA27OZO312-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. TO657.V8.G37 1994 Rec'd by Dept. of Environmental Quality MAR 3 1994 Public & Inter- governmental Affairs Program Development Manual for a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program Gloucester County, Virginia March 1994 TD657.V8.G37 1994 Title: Program Development Manual for a Comprehensive stormwater management program TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREFACE II. BACKGROUND III. WATER RESOURCE & LAND USE PLANNING IV. WATER RESOURCE & PUBLIC FACILITY PLANNING V. APPENDIX 0 I. PREFACE 0 0 It is the hope of all those who have contributed to the writing of this manual that it will serve rural local governments who are beginning to address stormwater and other water resource issues. The terms stormwater and water resource are often used interchangeably in this manual. Water resource planning, when done in tandem with other planning initiatives, has proven to be an invaluable tool for legitimating planning decisions in the eyes of local citizenry. No one will argue against the value of preserving water resources and be taken seriously. The products of this study are varied. Conventional land use and transportation issues have been somewhat refined and are included in the covers of this manual. This work was done with tremendous help from the following: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department LDR, International Smith, Demer, Norman Kellerco, Inc. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Gloucester County remains very grateful for the assistance that has been provided by the individuals that embody these organizations. The planning and implementation of water resource protection efforts continues. 0 Il. BACKGROUND 0 0 In September 1992 The Virginia Council on the Environment (now the De partment of Environmental Quality) provided funding to Gloucester County to begin development of a comprehensive stormwater management program. The funding was provided through the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1992. This grant program was competitive in nature, with high priority assigned to proposals that included development of comprehensive planning and ordinance language addressing stormwater issues. The proposal ultimately submitted by Gloucester County included the incorporation of water resource management into the practice of land use, transportation and public facility planning. The concept for this project developed from the ideal that stormwater management and other water resource opportunities would not be foregone in the planning of land use and public infrastructure. It is important to understand that Gloucester County is one of many fast growing rural counties in Virginia's Tidewater Region. Most of the population growth experienced by the county began in the early 1980's and continues today. Until the 1980's Gloucester had few if any growth issues to deal with. There were only minimal demands for public services and transportation and other public infrastructure demands were equally stable. In the mid 1980's this stability slowly began to erode as demand for public facilities began to increase exponentially. It is imperative for the reader of this manual to understand that a sustained annual growth rate exceeding five percent, in a rural jurisdiction, is a harbinger of change that should not be ignored by anyone in the public service. 'This is not to imply that the government leaders in Gloucester ignored what was happening in the county, quite the contrary. The county, with great speed, managed to connect a small sub-regional sewage treatment plant to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District's facilities via a 17 mile force main. In addition the county met its increasing solid waste disposal, collection and recycling needs by contracting with a major private concern. As if that wasn't enough, the county built an approximately 4.0 mgd reservoir and water treatment facility to allow expansion of the water supply. All of these improvements were accomplished in approximately the same ten year period in which growth was accelerating. It is doubtful that this scope of infrastructural improvement has been accomplished, in jurisdictions of similar character, anywhere in this Commonwealth, in such a time frame. The irony of all this good work and capital investment is that it will serve to sustain the growth rate and increase demand for more public services. The presence of public water and sewer facilities has also begun to change the character and scope of development within the county. Pressures to attain customers on these immature, but expensive utilities, began to affect land use decisions. Densities are increasing, and with the increased densities more sophisticated land use policies are necessitated. The word "urban" began to creep into the dialogue and narrative of the local planning agencies. One reluctant planner coined the phrase 11rurban" to help describe the ongoing phenomenon that was increasingly changing the character of the county. After almost three years of debate, the county decided on a land use plan that encourages development in an area encompassing roughly 40 of the county's 225 square miles. Concentrating Development in this manner will do two things: first, it will leave the rural areas of the county somewhat intact; second, because development within the 40 square mile Development District will be serviced by public water and sewer the hazards associated with in- ground sewage disposal and increased groundwater withdrawals will be diminished. This land use policy also enjoys political favor because it helps to provide customers to the expensive utility systems, thereby spreading their cost among more users, resulting in lower water and sewer bills for constituents. However, the prospect of increased densities in such a large area of the county raises other environmental concerns. Increased percentages of impervious cover will lead to 3tormwater management problems from both a quality and quantity perspective. Increased densities will also create more demand for roads, parks, schools etc. with reasonable accessibility. The social and even psychological impacts to residents in these areas must also be considered. In essence almost everything related to public service changes in those areas where urban density occurs. Itis hoped that this manual will help rural jurisdictions, that are trying to cope with accelerated population growth, begin to understand some of the options available to deal with the inevitable changes that will occur. The products of this research are bent t-oward water resource preservation, but for the planners involved, the greater satisfaction came from the broadened definition of the exercise labeled "comprehensive planning". This manual has two district sections; Land use and Public.facility planning. Both were written with a predisposition toward their effects on water resource management. In fact, water resource management along with public facility location have become the primary determinants for land use planning decisions. Water resource management has evolved to this status, almost coincidentally, to augment other major land use decisions; such as, preserving agriculture, watersheds and wetland areas. Public facility locations have served to effect land use in more obvious ways; such as, increasing residential densities and allowing for other more intensive land uses. In addition to their land use implications, public facilities, such as roads, provide conduits for stormwater conveyance and may often provide for impoundment opportunities when alignments are carefully planned. The challenge now before Gloucester County is to implement the planning policies that have been developed. This manual cannot fully address implementation because it has been written prior to full implementation. However, it appears that there are three alternatives for stormwater management that deserve careful attention; conventional on-site detention, private development construction/maintenance associations, and stormwater utility programs. For pure simplicity, the on-site retention method is, by far, the easiest method. A jurisdiction simply adopts an ordinance and orders everyone to comply. In the long term the aggregate money and effort used to construct and maintain these numerous facilities will likely prove this method to be somewhat 'Insane for all but limited applications. Some of the approved management practices used today (e.g. infiltration trenches and retention ponds) are known to require expensive and chronic maintenance. Also, the symptoms from lack of maintenance do not often manifest themselves In an obvious manner, thereby making it difficult for everyone to know when maintenance is required. Private maintenance associations, with the local government included as a party, approach a more practical solution inasmuch as the number of management facilities can be significantly reduced. Maintenance, and member contributions for such, can be programmed into these agreements, thereby preventing the often unexpected large cost associated with preserving such facilities. Such larger facilities may also serve to aggregate open space within developed areas and therefore improve the aesthetics of the area served. The installation of a stormwater utility program is probably the most practical, and controversial, option available to Virginia local governments. It is politically controversial because it involves establishing a new tax and increasing the local bureaucracy. The establishment of such a utility will soon, if not presently, subject the utility owner to regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These regulations have been known to be extremely expensive to meet, and should therefore be carefully researched by anyone proposing a stormwater utility. The positive elements of a utility structure are its ability to raise adequate money for construction and maintenance projects when and where they are most needed. It is apparent that, for now, Gloucester will choose to implement its stormwater program by utilizing an ordinance approach. When it is feasible, sub-regional practices will also be encouraged. This ordinance approach is the preferred option for the short term only. Gloucester is simply not in a position where it can create a utility in short order. The county planners also hope to work with state agencies to facilitate the creation of a broader spectrum of options available to local governments who are attempting to customize a stormwater management program to their specific needs. 0 111. WATER RESOURCE & LAND USE PLANNING 0 Probably the most provocative exercise performed in the development of Gloucester's planning program was the incorporation of water resource planning into land use planning. Land use planning will invariably include arguments supporting different positions that can be taken when placing use designations on land. Very often, the process seems to be somewhat arbitrary to those who are not fully involved in the research that led to an initial set of draft proposals. The most troublesome decisions were centered on the rationale used to determine where extremely low densities would be encouraged by the land use plan. Preserving rural character for the sake of character alone was inadequate rationale for Planning Commissioners proposing to limit property owners' development rights. This stalemate continued for almost twelve months, and this impasse threatened the fundamentals of the entire planning process. One of the two large areas being proposed for low density (1 unit/5 acres) development had a predominance of hydric soils with large areas of non-tidal wetlands. This same area has very little topography with elevations reaching no more than ten feet above mean sea level. This area was appropriately named "Bayside District" on the draft Land Use Map which was the subject of debate before the commission. The line that was drawn separating the Bayside District from the "Primary Development District" was placed along a well defined, topographic escarpment which elevated the Development district approximately twenty feet above the Bayside District. In spite of what, to planners, appeared to be excellent reasoning for such a designation, the commission remained deadlocked. In what now seems to have been an act of divine intervention, planners received a copy of a report from the Army Corps of Engineers entitled, "Virginia Hurricane Surge Atlas", for the Chesapeake Bay Region, dated August of 1991. This atlas included a number of maps of Gloucester County and illustrated what areas of the county would likely be inundated by a storm surge in the event of an unfortunately well placed hurricane. This atlas showed the Bayside District to be underwater in such an event. The planners brought: this new information to the commission at a time when the news media was covering the tragic loss of life from a typhoon that struck Bangledesh. Bangledesh bas.a low lying area that is the chronic victim of typhoons. In spite of this danger, its residents have historically re-occupied this area after the floods recede and the Planning Commission could now relate issues of public safety and sheer common sense to the plan. These comparisons were clearly drawn by planners, and the impasse on the Bayside District was quickly resolved. The water resource benefits associated with the Bayside District go beyond the intrinsic value of wetlands preservation. The proximity of these wetlands to the Primary Development District allows them to accept and treat suburban run-off in a natural manner. The Primary Development District is, in essence, serviced by the Bayside District and the two tend to compliment each other. The other large area of the county being considered for equally low density is labeled the "Countryside District" (please note the use of euphemistic titles). This district was originally being considered for. low density (1 unit/five acres) due to the predominance of agricultural land use and because it was not serviced very well by roads and other public facilities. The same problems within the planning commission relative to the Bayside District prevailed. The Commissio n felt they needed a more practical rationale for the designation. During this struggle, the County had just begun to operate a new water treatment facility that was supplied water by an equally new 635 acre reservoir. This brand new facility was an extremely controversial endeavor for the County primarily due to its cost. The watershed for this facility included an expanse of land area within the proposed Countryside District. When the County first began to plan for the reservoir it hired a consultant to perform a site selection survey and environmental impact analysis for sites that scored high in the selection matrix. The site that scored highest was the Beaverdam Reservoir site, the one that was subsequently built. The two sites that scored second and third, far ahead of the fourth site, both had contiguous watersheds to the Beaverdam site. The engineering study that had been done to select the best sites for future surface water supplies, gave rise to the realization that all potential watersheds for surface water supplies were contiguous, and located entirely within the Countryside District. Therefore, if the County was going to: contain sprawling development patterns, preserve agricultural use of land, open space, some of its rural character, and its potential water supplies from development; the Countryside District was a rationale first step. The Planning Commission agreed that the land use plan should attempt to protect the existing reservoir and other valuable watersheds, and for all the above reasons approved the beleaguered land use plan. As the reader may detect by now, water resource planning has served to remediate some of the political problems associated with land use planning in Gloucester. This should not be viewed as a cheap tactic, but one that recognizes the political realities of local government. 3rd DRAFT 1/17/94 Population, Household and Employment Projections for Gloucester County Introduction This memorandum develops the rationale for a series of projections made for Gloucester County and presents these forecasts. This effort is part of a 1994 Comprehensive Plan Supplement, which focuses on balancing land use and transportation planning for the County. This study is based on the assumption that future land use proposals should be in some reasonable balance with future transportation plans. The analysis of the land use/transportation interface is to be accomplished through the use of a computer simulation or model which projects future traffic in the County based on its future population and employment growth. The computer model for the County, developed by the Hampton Roads Regional Planning District Commission (HRPDC) is part of HRPDC's larger computer model for the region. Thus it incorporates into its results for Gloucester County the effects of population and job growth throughout the region, and vice versa. In subsequent sections of this memorandum, the background of current thinking on land use and transportation for the County is presented followed by an analysis of its buildout capacity so as to assess what the Plan's long term vision of the County means in terms of population, housing and employment. The buildout scenario is necessary because the Comprehensive Plan accommodates such a large amount of land use change without specifying its supporting transportation infrastructure. Stepping back from the long term picture, we next develop shorter term projections for the County based on a Trends and Accelerated Growth scena'r'io. Finally, these County-wide growth scenarios are broken down into smaller subareas for the more detailed growth projections that will drive the traffic model. Background on Land Use and Transportation Plans for the County The current Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1988/1989 and was adopted in 1991. Its bottom-line product is a county-wide future land use map with associated text. This map significantly increases the land to be used for medium density development beyond the current limited single family zoning pattern. It creates a Development District, from the Point to the Courthouse of about 35 square miles with Rt. 17 as its spine. Within this District, densities are envisaged at 4 to 5 units per acre on public water and sewer. By way of comparison, the current single family zoning district with 10,000 SF lots on public water and sewer, yields about 2.5 to 3 units per acre. While the extent and intensity of the County's suburban development areas is increased in the Plan, the Plan decreases the development yields in its rural areas. Currently the rural residential zone allows 11/2 acre lots; the Comprehensive Plan proposes 11/2 or 5 acre lots, depending on location. The net effect of the land use changes is to allow for a very large future increase in residential population. This future development capacity is quantified in the next section. The commercial zoning that runs the 12 miles along Rt. 17 from the Point to the Courthouse is not explicitly modified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states a preference for larger and deeper "nodes" of commercial development rather than a continuous, shallow strip along the corridor, but it does not explicitly propose an alternative pattern. The Plan, however, does propose an overlay zone on the corridor which would address aesthetics and access management. The unofficial Citizens Plan for Gloucester Point, however, proposes to reduce the amount of retail zoning and substitute in its place employment zoning. Like the residential capacity, the commercial zoning, which is only partially developed to date, also has very significant future development capacity. Abutting the corridor, the Plan identifies a 500-acre area for future industrial development, just south of the Courthouse, which is currently the site of the former airport and golf course. These significant increases in capacity for future development will require supporting infrastructure. The Plan's transportation element shows a future collector road, parallel to and east of Rt. 17 from the Courthouse to the Point. Its purpose is to remove local, short-distance vehicle trips from Rt. 17 and to interconnect neighborhoods. The Plan also shows a new crossing of the York River, from Ark to Williamsburg, as a reliever for the SOUthbound traffic on Rt. 17. The alignment of this northern bridge crossing is the result of a planning study conducted by VDOT and documented in a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement in August, 1988. 2 Another study VIDOT of the Rt. 17 corridor in March, 1992 proposed a series of connecting parallel roads to Rt. 17 at its southern end. The same study proposes that Rt. 17, currently four lanes, be increased to six lanes for a 2.4 mile portion of its length from the Coleman Bridge northwards to Rt. 216 and that various improvements to its current four lane section should be made along its middle stretch northward for another 2.9 miles (to north of Rt. 667). From Rt. 667 to Rt. 17 Business at Gloucester Courthouse, the study proposes selected improvements at particular intersections, crossover modifications and circulation improvements. The total cost estimate of these improvements was approximately $30.5 million. The VIDOT study did not include a traffic forecasting element. The 2010 Highway Needs Study by VDOT, completed in April, 1991 with the assistance of HRPDC, shows projected volumes in 2010 along Rt. 17, which it proposes as a six lane facility along its twelve mile length. It shows the Coleman Bridge as a four lane facility and also the new northern crossing as a four lane facility. Projected traffic volumes on these two bridges are shown as roughly equal, i.e. in the 24,000 to 27,000 ADT range. The Northern Crossing Alternative Study and the 2010 Highway Needs Study preceded, and were therefore not based on the land use, population and employment recommendations and proposals of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan itself did not include a forecast of future traffic needs. A major purpose of this Comprehensive Plan Supplement is to relate the future land use plans to future transportation needs and to update these earlier plans and projections. This will require a review of past population and employment projections and the development of forecasts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The time horizon of these projections is important since the timeframe of the land use plan should relate to that of the transportation plan. If, for example, the Comprehensive Plan represents a preferred pattern of land uses that would be developed in 50 years time, then the transportation system in the Plan should be capable of supporting this land use pattern in 50 years time. The Holding Capacity of the Current Comprehensive Plan Holding Capacity refers to the number of people, dwelling units and employees that the County can absorb at buildout. The terms holding capacity and buildout are used interchangeably. 3 A buildout analysis was conducted in 1990 for the County's Department of Public Utilities so as to size sewer pipes to handle ultimate capacity. In this analysis, different sewer sheds were reduced to a net acreage by removing hydric soils and maximum development densities were then applied with the guidance of the Department of Community Development. Since they were not based on the Comprehensive Plan, they need to be updated for this Supplement. To yield holding capacity, the allowable density or lot size recommended in the Comprehensive Plan cannot simply be multiplied by the acreage of the differently designated development areas in the Plan. One must deduct for existing development, wetlands, soils unlikely to perk, steep slopes and roads. in addition, some lands will also be used for schools or parks or will simply be held off the development market by owners who will retain them as large estates and not subdivide. All of these qualifiers must be factored into holding capacity analysis. Table 1 presents a holding capacity analysis which takes the above factors into account and differentiates between the Development District and other areas based on the densities and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Citizens' Plan for Gloucester Point and Courthouse were used for these areas even though they have not been formally adopted. The overall yield of the County at buildout, 72,752 units, includes the 1990 total of 12,443 units. This total is divided between 48,567 units in the Development District and 24,185 in the County's rural areas. In the table, these numbers are also converted to population figures. The County's holding capacity for employment is based upon buildout of the current Rt. 17 corridor zoning and the new industrial employment areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan. Table 2 shows these calculations. In all, over 22.5 million square feet of future commercial development and almost 8 million square feet of future industrial space can be accommodated. Currently, there is about 1.3 million square feet of commercial development in the County. When will buildout of the Comprehensive Plan occur and what are some intermediate points of growth along the way? We now turn to projecting rates of growth for the County. 4 Table 1: Gloucester County Buildout Projections Based on Density Factors* Development District Rural Areas Total Gloucester Gloucester Suburban Suburban Rural Courthouse Point Residential Subtotal Cntryside Cntryside Bayside Subtotal 100%) TO Acresi 5,462 5,475 13,853 24,790 39,251 48,481 34,385 122,017 1 4% 4% 9% 17% 27%1 33% 23% 83% 146,807 1 Acres 1,325 3,421 2,790 7,536 5,310 2,173 9,907 17,390 Developed 5% 14% 11% 30% 21% 9% 40% 70% 24,926 Vacant Acres 1,008 736 1,485 3,229 2,386 3,670 243 6,299 Undevelopable 11% 8% 16% 35%1 24% 38% 3% 65% 9,528 Vacant Acres 3,129 1,318 9,578 14,025 31,555 43,838 25,473 100,866 Developable 3% 1% 8% 12% 27% 38% 23% 88% 114,891 Unit Yield 10,234 4,031 28,734 42,999 9,648 5,608 2,054 17,310 17%1 7% 48% 72% 16% 9%1 3% 28% 60,309 Existing Du 913 3,569 1,086 5,568 3,375 1,256 2,244 6,875 Households 7% 29% 9% 45% 27% 10% 18% 55% 12,443 Total Du at 11,147 7,600 29,820 48,567 13,023 6,864 4,298 24,185 Buildout 15% 11% 41% 67% 18%1 10% 5%1 72,752 Pop. per HH at Buildout 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Total Addd. 22,515 8,868 63,215 94,598 21,378 12,338 4,519 38,235 Population 17% 7% 48% 72% 16% 9% 3% 28% 132,833 Existing 2,385 8,481 3,105 13,971 7,821 3,408 4,931 16,160 Population 8%1 28% 11% 47% 26% 11% 16% 53% 30,131 Total Pop. at 24,9001 17,349 66,320 108,569 29,199 15,746 9,4501 53,635 Buildout 15% 11% 41% 18% 10% 5% 33% 1=62,964 lActual total acreage is 144,000; discrepancy due to water areas, rounding, et The following density factors were used: Development Yield in Septic & Well Areas (Acres per Unit) Comprehensive Plan Areas MPPDC Analysis Categories Suburban Countryside Rural Countryside Bayside Suitab e 1.5 5 5 Slight Limitations 3 7 7 Severe Limitations 5 10 10 Floodplain 20 20 20 Development Yield in Development District (Units per Acre) SIF-Low Density SIF-Med. Density V Core - MXD PUD Gloucester Village 1.5 3 6 6 Suburban - LD One-Family Village Gloucester Point 1 3 6 Area In-Between (Suburban Residential) Assume 3.0 du/Acre Table 2: Gloucester County Derivation of Commercial Holding Capacity SF of B-1 Zoning along Rt. 17 851323,520 SF SF of Commercial in Gloucester Courthouse 6,098,400 SF Total B-1 SF 91,421,930 SF At .25 FAR 22,855,482 SF Derivation.of Industrial Holding Capacity Acres of Land in Comprehensive Plan for 500 industrial Park at Airport Site Acres of Land on Comprehensive Plan for 90 Industrial Park in Northeast Gloucester Courthouse 590 Acres At 13,000 square feet per acre 7.7 Million Square Feet 6 Growth Projections Over Time Population In addition to the buildout study for the County Department of Utilities referred to above, there are at several other recent sources of growth projections: these include those done for the Comprehensive Plan itself in 1988 which projected out to the year 2010 and those done by HRPDC as part of its region-wide forecasting program in February, 1993, which projected out to the year 2015. These two projections are compared in Table 3. The Comprehensive Plan numbers are higher than HRPDC's, for an increase of over 8,000 units over the 20 years. This equates to a population increase of over 18,000 people. HRPDC projections are expressed in terms of population and must be converted to dwelling units using a household size. Table 3 shows trends in household size for Gloucester County and projects them into the future. HRPDC population yields an increase of about 4,230 units to 2010, or about 211 per year over the two decades. In 2015, HRPDC projects a total of about 47,000 people in approximately 18,000 units. The Comprehensive Plan's projections average 414 units per year. By way of comparison, the 1980's averaged 624 units permitted per year, with a high of 951 units in 1985 and a low of 340 in 1989. Recent recession- bound permits have averaged around 300 per year. HRPDC assumes a reduced pace of growth for Gloucester County based on its recent regional assessment of future job and population prospects. In addition to the two projections above, The Virginia Employment Commission (1993) and the County's own Recreation and Parks Department (1990) have also published projections. VEC's are roughly midway between the Comprehensive Plan's and HRPDCs, while the REC Plan's numbers are very high compared to all the other projections. When viewed against the overall holding capacity of Gloucester County of 72,752 units, however, the projections of either the Comprehensive Plan or HRPDC show how small a fraction of total growth (roughly, 17% or 9%, respectively) will be absorbed in the County over the next 20-25 years. In fact, the County can absorb between 100 and 200 years of future growth if the Comprehensive Plan or HRPDC's respective rates are extended into the future as a straight line! Seen over such a long time span, the differences between the Comprehensive Plan and HRPDC's numbers are minor. 7 Table 3: Gloucester County Population and Household Projections Population 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 Buildout State VEC (1993) 30,131 39,042 46,049 49,553** 53,056 60,063 HRPDC 30,131 37,911 43,862 46,973 Comprehensive Plan -30,131 40,314 48,509 50,000 Rec Plan (1990) 30,131 47,474 -58,739 Households" Persons per Household 2.72 2.64 2.58 2.54 2.44 (HRPDQ HRPDC Households 12,443 14,145 16,678 18,086 Comprehensive Plan 12,443 1 16,590 20,730 1 1 1 1 61,640 Households multiplied by person/household do not add up to the population because of a small percentage of population residing in group quarters. By interpretation. Derived using same annual rate from Plan for 1990-2010. Employment Historical employment figures and their projections by the HRPDC are shown in Table 4. Their associated job to housing ratios are also shown' in Table 4. HRPDC's projections, done in February, 1993, reflect recent cutbacks in the military/industrial base of the region and anticipate a generally slower pace of future growth than earlier projections. Projections Trend Projections Housing projections were developed for Gloucester County based upon Buildout for a Trend Rate and an Accelerated Growth Rate. Each of these curves is roughly S-shaped. (See Figure 1) They reflect the typical pattern of suburban growth which starts off somewhat slowly and then increases rapidly before tapering off as development approaches buildout. The Trend Growth line is based on approximately 414 units per year as an average figure, the same as in the Comprehensive Plan of 1991. This is, however, an average figure since at its peak growth will exceed this number but it will slow down to considerably less than this number as buildout approaches. This is almost double HRPDCIs annual rate of 225, but we believe it can be justified on several grounds: a plentiful and cheap land supply and affordable housing; simplicity of doing business in a generally pro-growth atmosphere; new availability of sewer and water; the widened Coleman Bridge; a future northern bridge crossing to Williamsburg; and a reputation for good schools. The housing projections to 2015 are shown in Table 5. Employment projections utilize the jobs/housing ratios established in Table 4 and this increases the employment figures through 2015 compared with HRPDC's. The logic of interdependence between population and employment holds in that most employment in Gloucester County will likely be service-oriented and thus dependent on population growth. Accelerated Growth This scenario assumes that the widening to four lanes of the Coleman Bridge, the availability of sewer and water, the County's low land costs and the continued growth of jobs in the region will make Gloucester as attractive to newly residential development as in the peak years of the '80's. Potential growth will average 920 units per year but is at a slower rate than this out to 2015. Employment growth will accelerate in the latter years of this tirneframe as the local population base begins to support more local- 9 serving employment uses and the labor force becomes large enough to attract some new ind ustrial/manufactu ring uses. Table 5 shows the results of the above two scenarios. Buildout would occur within 60 years under the Accelerated scenario and within 110 years under the Trend buildout. Within these scenarios, the holding capacity of the Master Plan establishes the final mix of Development District versus Rural housing. These proportions (67 and 33% of the growth increment respectively) are held as fixed points at buildout, and the current split between Rural and Development District housing in 1990 is used as the beginning point. The growth curves tie beginning and end points together as the Rural component decreases compared to the Urban component over time. Thus as the attached table indicates, the significant proportion in Rural development in 1990 (55%) decreases to 52% in 2015 Trend and to 47% in 2015 Accelerated scenarios. The curve is set, however, to portray a rapid absorption of rural lots in the next 25 years, mirroring the pattern of the 1980's. Thus, by 2015 Accelerated, 70% of the rural capacity has already been absorbed, but only 38% of the Development District housing. 10 Table 4: Employment Projections by HRPDC 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Employees* 3,417 6,316 9,513 14,034 16,583 17,430 Households 4,732 7,500 11,077 14, 16,678 18,086 Jobs/Housing 0.72 0.84 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.96 Ratio -1 1 1 1 1 1 1990 data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 5: Gloucester County Growth Increments by Scenario Total Overall 1990 2000 2010 2015 Increment Total Trend Growth *Population 30,131 13,648 9,886 4,431 27,965 58,096 *Housing Units 12,443 4,140 4,140 2,070 10,350 22,793 Employment 9,500 4,099 4,099 1,987 10,185 19,340 Jobs/Housing Ratio 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.98 Accelerated Growth *Population 30,131 27,007 22,437 10,450 59,894 90,925 *Housing Units 12,443 9,200 9,200 4,600 23,000 32,443 Employment 9,500 9,108 9,108 5,060 23,368 29,820 Jobs/Housing Ratio 0.85 0.99 1.0 1.1 1.02 *Buildout Population 30,131 132,833 162,964 Housing 12,443 60,309 72,752 Employment 9,500 Jobs/Housing Ratio 0.85 ,(JID 0 )34 45 Longer Term Growth and the Transportation Model The Comprehensive Plan represents a an increase in capacity of about 183% to 285% over the 25 year trend and accelerated growth scenarios, respectively. Comprehensive Plans typically provide for an "overage" of p between 25-100% of their 20 year projections, i.e. for a 25-40 year period so as to allow the free market to operate efficiently, to avoid raising the cost of land by restricting its supply, to prevent large tract holders from monopolizing and distorting the market and to account for the effects of land held off the market. The safety factory or overage in the Gloucester Comprehensive Plan is thus unusually large. If new zoning were approved in accordance with this Plan, extensive and non-contiguous areas could be developed throughout the Development District and rural areas. The Comprehensive Plan requires a complementary transportation system that will support this long term buildout at reasonable levels of service for future traffic. Admittedly this is extreme crystal-ball gazing, but showing what the transportation needs of the Plan as adopted are will be a useful discipline. It will provide a more realistic appraisal of the land use plan; the need for future roadways and their alignments can then more easily be identified, the long term effect of the new northern crossing can be assessed and the long term effectiveness of parallel connector roads for the north/south corridor can be evaluated. In the computer simulations, a buildout scenario will also be modeled to see what light it can shed on current planning. In order to model the buildout scenario, regional growth and trips will also be factored to a longer term timeframe. The Trend and Accelerated Scenarios will be modeled both with and without the northern crossing to assess the effects of this bridge. The Buildout will be modeled including the crossing only. Sub-Area Allocations The previous projections have dealt with growth on a County-wide basis. As our earlier discussions of the Comprehensive Plan indicated, growth will vary significantly by sub-area depending on- its land use designation, environmental constraints and so forth. The traffic model, in order to simulate future volumes at given points in the road system, and in order to be sensitive to the effects of land Use change, 12 divides the County into a large number of sub-areas called Transportation Zones (TZ). Figure 2 shows these sub-areas. For each of these TZ's, population, households and employment figures must be derived. Using various existing data sources, the 1990 population and employment figures were allocated to the 1990 TZ's. With these zone's holding capacity as a backdrop, and recognizing existing development and population, the Comprehensive Plan land use designations are used as a guide for future sub-area allocations for Trend, Accelerated and Buildout scenarios. Methodology for Allocating Growth to Transportation Zones Residential Development Residential allocations for the county were developed around two possible growth scenarios for Gloucester County. These two scenarios were concerned with the effects on County growth patterns with or without a new bridge crossing of the York River, and, therefore were called "With Northern Crossing" and "Without Northern Crossing". Both of these scenarios were then developed under two different growth rates, "Trend" and "Accelerated." With Northern Crossing This scenario operated under the assumption that growth would occur evenly over the county, from north to south, because of new bridge crossing would encourage growth in the northern part of the country. However, an additional assumption was also made which stated that there would be a tendency for the high-ameni!y areas of the county to develop at a quicker rate than the rest of the county. For our purposes, we defined the "Amenity Zones" as those traffic zones with substantial water frontage (see figure - ). The remainder of the traffic zones were termed "Interior Zones". These zones were also utilized in the "Without Northern Crossing" scenario. By taking the total increment of build-out units in the amenity zones (18099 du) and dividing that number by the total increment of build-out units county wide (60,309 du), the percentage of amenity zone units (30%) can be applied to both the total Trend and Accelerated units to determine what an even allocation of units to the Amenity Zones would be (.30 x 10,350 = 3,105 du and .30 x 23,000 = 6,900 du, respectively). These two numbers were then factored by 140% (4347 du and 9660 du, respectively) to reflect 13 a greater rate of growth within the Amenity Zones. Then, by subtracting the Amenity allocation from the total allocation to the Interior areas could be calculated. (6,003 du and 13,340 du, respectively). The next step was to allocate these subtotals to each traffic zone. Keeping the zones grouped in "Amenity" and "Interior", the build-out increment for each zone is divided by the total build-out increment for Amenity or Interior areas, and a percentage is therefore calculated for each zone. This percentage is then multiplied by the total Amenity or Interior allocation to give the specific traffic zone allocation. Example: TZ 438 is in the "Amenity" area, and has a total build-out growth increment of 4,980 du. The total build-out growth increment for the "Amenity" area equals 18,099 du. Therefore, 4,980 18,099 equals 27.5%. This percentage multiplied by the total Amenity allocations (4,347 du and 9,660 du) gives the specific allocation for TZ 438 (1,195 du, trend, and 2,657 du, accelerated). These allocations are then added to the existing units (250) for the final allocation for TZ 438 (1,445 du and 2,907 du, respectively). Without Northern Crossing This scenario is based on the assumption that without a new bridge crossing of the York River, the southern portion of the county would grow more rapidly than the northern portion of the county. The line separating the northern traffic zones from the southern is shown in figure Under this scenario, 60% of both the trend and accelerated scenarios is allocated to the traffic zones in the south, and 40% to the north. This yields the following breakdown: Trend Accelerated 40% - North 4,140 9,200 60% - South 6,210 13,800 Total 10,350 23,000 14 At this point, both the North and South zones are split into "Interior" and "Amenity" areas, as in the 'With Northern Crossing" scenario. This split results in the following figures: North Trend Accelerated Amenity 909 2020 Interior 3231 7180 South Amenity 5239 9979 Interior 971 3821 There is one exception in the Amenity/interior split when compared to the "With Northern Crossing" scenario, however, because the total build-out increment of the South Amenity Zones is 11,681 du, a factor of 140% applied to these zones brings the area to 99% of build-out. For this reason, a factor of 120% was used instead in order to provide a more realistic growth scenario for these zones. Once these allocations were made, the same process is used as in the "With Northern Crossing" scenario to allocate units to each zone, with the existing units added at the end to provide the final allocation for each scenario. Employment Development [text to come] 15 GLOUCESTER COUNTY BUILD OUT - 2050 OR 2100 Zone- DUs Population Employees 278 1,089 2,657 306 147 359 307 5,5Z7 13,486 308 380 927 309 1,506 3,675 310 5,835 14,2-37 311 1,061 2,589 312 1,427 3,482 313 284 693 314 238 581 315 222 542 325 7.3 178 325 759 1,852 327 3,040 7,418 328 2,339 5,707 329 132 322 330 948 2,313 331 3,028 7,388 332 301 734 333 1,639 3,999 334 507 1,237 335 1,697 4,141 336 1,773 4,326 337 159 388 338 1,179 2,877 339 209 510 340 1,432 3,494 341 4,558 11,122 342 975 2,379 343 1,862 4,54.1 344 545 1,330 345 1,242 3,030 346 509 1,242 347 533 1,301 433 1,64.3 4,009 4.35 277 676 436 1,77.3 4,326 4.37 272 664 438 9,311 22,719 439 145 354 441 378 922 442 4,905 11,968 443 6,27.5 15,311 444 4,488 10,9_51 445 1,941 4,7.-% 446 1,717 4,189 447 1 3,649, 8,904, TOTAL 83,9291 204,7871 GLOUCESTER COUNTY TREND GROWTH - 2015 With Northern Crossing Without Northern Crossing Zone DUs Population Employees DU's Population Employees 278 289 705 3,086 277 676 2960 306 216 527 20 24 59 20 307 1,795 4,380 545 1,175 2,867 545 308 185 451 29 75 183 29 309 978 2,386 20 686 1,674 20 310 2,084 5,0&5 236 1,7.30 4,221 236 311 552 1,347 20 341 832 20 312 1,051 2,564 130 247 603 230 313 416 1,015 128 37 90 128 314 185 451 47 29 71 47 315 294 717 25 43 105 25 1125 80 195 57 19 46 67 326 183 447 597 193 471 607 327 359 876 87 774 1,889 87 328 321 783 451 596 1,454 504 329 52 127 98 45 110 126 330 344 839 464 245 598 600 331 361 881 1,822 771 1,881 1129 332 90 220 20 106 259 20 333 71 173 98 425 1,037 126 334 124 303 87 129 315 87 335 214 522 513 433 1,057 663 336 166 405 428 452 1,10-3 553 337 41 100 20 24 59 20 338 105 256 376 484 1,181 477 339 159 388 20 34 83 20 340 206 503 20 386 942 20 341 590 1,440 1,204 1,16.1 2,838 1368 342 72 176 595 401 978 762 343 179 437 548 765 1,867 681 344 89 217 20 186 454 20 345 402 981 243 876 2,137 275 346 1,235 3,013 1,311 359 876 1471 347 199 486 400 136 332 274 433 1,010 2,464 926 1,158 2,826 1113 435 578 1,410 1,298 195 476 1431 436 821 2,00.3 87 1,250 3,050 87 437 866 2,113 476 122 298 476 438 1,122 2,738 132 6,56.5 16,019 132 439 352 859 20 65 159 20 441 391 954 20 170 415 20 442 833 2,033 87 1,698 4,14.3 87 443 737 1,798 803 2,578 6,290 959 444 813 1,984 87 3,182 7,764 87 445 742 1,810 20 1,596 3,894 20 446 559 1,364 1,344 432 1,054 508 447 385 939 87 1,67.5 4,087 87 TOTAL 22,896 55,866 19,252 34,352 83,819 19,244 GLOUCESTER COUNTY ACCELERATED GROWTH - 2015 With Northern Crossing Without Northern Crossing Zone DUs Population I Employees DUs Population Employees 278 432 1,054 3,708 471 1,149 3,124 306 273 666 4 49 120 47 307 3,106 7,579 572 1724 4,207 572 308 211 515 56 114 278 56 309 1,316 3,211 47 852 2,079 47 310 3,820 9,321 263 2297 5,605 263 311 661 1,613 47 432 1,054 47 312 1,153 2,813 257 485 1,183 257 313 146 356 155 68 166 155 314 122 298 74 55 134 74 315 180 439 52 79 193 52 325 28 68 108 25 61 122 326 285 695 648 264 644 662 327 1,211 2,955 200 1060 2,586 200 328 932 2,274 731 816 1,991 810 329 84 205 234 56 137 271 330 471 1,149 1,110 333 813 1,287 331 1,206 2,94.3 4,267 1056 2,577 3,308 332 193 471 47 131 320 47 333 429 1,047 234 579 1,413 271 334 202 493 200 177 432 200 335 676 1,649 1,026 592 1,444 1,695 336 706 1,7B 1,022 618 1,508 1,422 337 81 198 47 81 198 47 338 597 1,457 859 778 1,898 993 339 108 264 47 108 264 47 340 407 993 47 518 1,264 47 341 1,184 2,889 1,98.5 1591 3,882 2,201 342 494 1,20.5 1,386 644 1,571 1,60.3 343 944 2,30.3 1,185 1230 3,001 1,360 344 167 407 47 338 825 47 345 861 2,101 396 1145 2,794 438 346 353 861 2,07.5 469 1,144 2,286 347 213 520 1,022 186 454 438 433 1,139 2,779 1,817 1515 3,697 2,06.3 435 192 468 1,935 255 622 2,110 436 1,229 2,999 200 16-35 3,989 200 437 218 532 503 232 566 503 438 6,455 15,750 159 8585 20,947 159 439 116 283 47 235 573 47 441 .303 739 47 434 1,059 47 442 1,791 4,370 200 2345 5,722 200 443 .3,180 7,759 1,54.3 4144 10,111 1,74-5 444 1,455 3,550 200 4143 10,109 200 445 1,816 4,431 200 1850 4,514 200 446 '779 1,901 1,307 594 1,449 1,097 447 1 '707 1,72.5 1 200, 1 19241 4,69.5 1 200 TOTAL 42,632 1 104,0221 32,51611 47,3121 115,4411 33,267 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Indicates that Totat Number Has Changed THESE ARE ONLY ONES CORRECTED: TREND GROWTH 2015 W N. CROSSING TZ GOV'T MFG HISC OFF/SERV. RETAIL TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Strip 5% 5% 10% 45% 35% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 326 2 2 25 530 38 597 328 14 14 75 163 185 451 341 198 67 101 466 172 1004* 345 22 22 62 293 "3* 3" 31 283 453 500 1311 433 58 97 209 426 136 926 "3 27 36 189 310 250 803 Mfg. 0% 70% 15% 10% 5% 100% ---------- ........................................................... 446 0 M. 377 215 66 1431 Downtown 45% 0% 5% 30% 20% 100% ---------- --------------------------------- ......................... 278 1784 68 273 .426 535 3086 347 115 0 42 186 57 400 Rurat DD 0% 0% 2% 30% 68% 100% ---------- ---------------- I .......................................... 327 0 0 1 70 16 87 446 0 0 213 130 69 412 Rurat 0% 5% 5% 35% 55% 100% --------------------------- - ----------------------------------------- 307 52 90 97 261 45 545 310 0 11 17 200 18 236 312 0 3 199 14 14 230 313 0 1 82 7 38 128 437 0 42 412 8 14 476 438 0 1 1 73 57 132 Indicates that Total, Nunber Has Changed THESE ARE ONLY ONES CORRECTED: TREND GROWTH 2015 W/O N. CROSSING TZ GOV'T MFG HISC OFF/SERV. RETAIL TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Strip 5% 5% 10% 45% 35% 100% ---------------------------- I.......................................... 326 2 2.3 4 536 47 607 341 220 99 152 622 275 1368 345 6 6 12 116 335 475* 346 29 42 279 436 485 1271* 433 41 82 203 486 301 1113 443 34 43 204 373 305 959 Mfg. 0% 70% 15% 10% 5% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 446 0 255 266 141 29 691 Downtown 45% 0% 5% 30% 20% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 278 1728 613 267 387 510 2960 347 58 1) 35 149 32 274 Rurat DO 0% 0% 2% 30% 68% 100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 327 0 1) 1 70 16 87 RuraL 0% 5% 5% 35% 55% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 307 52 90 97 261 45 545 310 0 17 200 18 236 312 0 3 199 14 14 230 313 0 11 82 7 38 128 437 0 42 412 8 14 476 438 0 1 1 73 57 132 Indicates that Total Number Has Changed THESE ARE ONLY ONES CORRECTED: ACCELERATED GROWTH - 2015 W N. CROSSING TZ GOV'T MFG HISC OFF/SERV. RETAIL TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Strip 5% 5% 10% 45% 35% 100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 326 4 25 9 554 56 648 341 247 126 209 907 496 1985 345 3 2 5 79 307 396 346 28 46 285 453 499 1311 433 32 T; 184 402 235 926 Mfg. 0% 70% 15% 10% 5% 100% --------------------------- --------------------------------- -------- "6 0 12ri 484 286 102 2147 Downtown 45% 0% 5% 30% 20% 100% --------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------- 278 1802 68 275 437 542 3124 0 347 131 0 198 65 438 Rurat DO 0% 0% 2% 30% 68% 100% -------------------------------------------- ---------------- ........ 327 0 0 3 104 93 200 Rural 0% 5% 5% 35% 55% 100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 307 52 92 98 270 60 572 310 0 3 18 209 33 263 312 0 4 203 21 29 257 313 0 3 83 16 53 155 437 0 43 412 19 29 503 438 0 3 3 81 72 159 Indicates that Totat Number Has Changed THESE ARE ONLY ONES CORRECTED: ACCELERATED GROWTH - 2015 W/O N. CROSSING TZ GOV'T MFG MISC OFF/SERV. RETAIL TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Strip 5% 5% 10% 45% 35% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 326 5 26 10 560 61 662 341 260 136 231 1002 572 2201 345 5 5 10 97 321 438 Mfg. 0% 70% -15% 10% 5% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 446 0 539 327 181 50 1097 Downtown 45% 0% 5% 30% 20% 100% ...................................................................... 278 1802 68 275 437 542 3124 347 131 0 198 65 438 Rural, DD 0% 0% 2% 30% 68% 100% ------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 327 0 0 3 104 93 200 Rurat 0% 5% 5% 35% 55% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 307 52 92 98 270 60 572 310 0 3 18 209 33 263 312 0 4 203 21 29 257 313 0 3 83 16 53 155 437 0 415 412 19 29 503 438 0 3 81 72 159 3 Indicates that Totat Number Has CharVed THESE ARE ONLY ONES CORRECTED: BUILD(XJT TZ GOV'T MFG MISC OFF/SERV. RETAIL TOTAL ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Strip 5% 5% 10% 45% 35% 100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 341 229 108 182 818 427 1764 345 .5 5 10 100 321 "1 346 51 &@ 326 662 661 1764 443 52 62 242 535 432 1323 Downtown 45% 0% 5% 30% 20% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 278 1852 68 306 388 586 3200* 347 149 1) 45 209 71 474* Rurat 0% 5% 2% 30% 68% 100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 307 52 94 88 361 272 867 310 0 0 19 238 110 367 312 0 1) 199 54 114 367 313 0 0 86 78 203 367 437 0 40 415 80 la2 717 4S "n SA, A4 T N VZ:ll 14, tit N4 W". W IN s-lm' 16", K Yl Ro I Z11 CIN, Rl V;l tA 7@7 4-4 31 w 4 000,041, vl@ low Illm vo IZ 77 lows, SAYS SOW Ao(f VA/to #4)' ftjpkf4m Ty 6 WAP ;-vt Al Ww va illy DOW UIMY WA*,M vo /At-) 4t, Al: AMP, MOW XI (4 %,/Ac) (I Ott/ ls@AL, 04 Ar oftorw 0 IV. WATER RESOURCE & PUBLIC FACILITY PLANNING 0 0 In the process of finalizing and adopting Gloucester County's 1991 Comprehensive Plan, it became clear that the transportation section lacked the detail necessary to help implement the Plan's ambitious goals. Quite simply, the land use debate had occupied most *of the planning team's time, and transportation did not receive the attention it warranted. This is not to criticize the team's effort; they prioritized the land use issue at a time when frantic growth necessitated responsible land use policies. Lacking the time required to complete a detailed transportation plan, the team developed a skeletal framework of much needed, large scale improvements. In this context, planners decided that transportation would be the focus of the first major Comprehensive Plan amendment after adoption. The initial subject of the renewed transportation debate quickly became the issue of congestion on Route 17 at Gloucester Point. A disjointed system of local roads in the area mandates that all local traffic utilize the already burdened arterial highway. Citizens and planning staff proposed a series of local connector roads, designed to provide residents an alternative local route. As planners began to consider alternative alignments for these new roads, they noticed that certain alignments crossed natural drainage systems, in a manner which suggested use of the roads as stormwater impoundment structures. This coincidence was not forgotten as the County considered options for developing an overall Transportation Plan. Therefore, when the County decided to hire consultants to perform a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Study, transportation (and land use, as detailed in the previous section) was built into the bargain. The connections became almost circular, and planners found it critically important to chose a consultant team with demonstrated ability to deal with all three issues. Gloucester selected a team composed of three separate firms, one with expertise in each area. This decision meant that each topic would receive the attention to detail that the project required. The approach did have certain drawbacks, however, because dealing with three firms meant that communication occasionally faltered. These problems were for the most part overcome, and the net result of the project is that transportation, land use, and stormwater management will now be treated as one issue in Gloucester County. Dedication to this approach means that stormwater management concerns will factor into all of Gloucester's comprehensive planning activities. In practical terms, it means that when planning a transportation facility, school, or other public facility, the County will consider the stormwater management opportunities that exist in the immediate area. If feasible watershed-scale management possibilities present themselves, facility design should attempt to preserve such opportunities. In this way, options will remain open, should a major facility become the most practicable management strategy in a particular watershed. This is not to imply that regional utility-sized retention basins will be constructed wherever a new road is built. It does, however, mean that where location of such a facility seems physically possible and consistent with Gloucester's overall stormwater management strategy, that opportunity should be preserved. The planning effort detailed in this manual has put in motion a process designed to accomplish those goals. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the County's current Transportation Plan (with the assistance of a computer model), consultants have developed several alternative transportation scenarios which build upon the existing skeletal network. It is important to note that although the process treats public facilities planning and stormwater management planning as inextricably linked, facility siting has come first. The reasons for this become obvious when one considers the factors which drive the process. The designation of public facility locations and right of way corridors is one of the strongest planning tools available to localities. Once these locations become part of the Comprehensive Plan, they become powerful negotiating tools during development review. This fact helps explain why Gloucester hopes to preserve stormwater management opportunities at the comprehensive planning stage, and it underscores the reason why facility siting occurs prior to stormwater management consideration. Transportation corridors, for example, will be identified based on Gloucester land use goals and needs. Once planners identify a particular corridor, they can then analyze the stormwater management opportunities presented by that corridor. Corridor alteration may be necessary to utilize such opportunities, ensuring that transportation and 3tormwater goals are met. As these new corridors become part of the Comprehensive Plan, so will the stormwater catchment opportunities. Thus, during analysis of development proposals, siting of stormwater management facilities will carry the same weight as does siting of other public facilities. It is too early to discuss implementation of this concept. Nonetheless, Gloucester has taken a critical first step for a rural jurisdiction attempting to develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Strategy. For the strategy to prove successful, the County will have to remain committed to treating water resource planning and public facilities planning as integrated processes. As stated above, the goal is to keep options alive, and not to forego practicable stormwater catchment opportunities during the development process. As Gloucester continues to grow, this approach will become increasingly important. DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Stormwater Management Gloucester County, Virginia March 1994 VCRMP Grant Program FY 1992-1993 This document was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environmenes Coastal Resources A I., W) Managment Program through Grant # NA270ZO312-01 of the National Oceanic and Atornspheric ho..@ Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone <I Management Act of 1972 as 2mended. To BE INSERTED IN THE NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION OF THE GLOUCESTER COUMY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: NARRATIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF-PAGE 153, IMEMENrATION RECOMMENDATIONS ON ME 174 ABOVE THE CHAPrER SUMMY. STOIMATER MANAGEMENr Over the past several years, the subject of stormwater management has received increasing attention at the federal, state, and local levels. Numerous scientific investigations have identified stormwater runoff (rain that drains off of land into water) as a prime contributor to water pollution. Such studies have concluded that water draining from developed areas carries with it increased amounts of sediment and pollutants. This type of pollution, which does not originate fram a single source, is called non-point source pollution, and has become the focus of environmental programs aimed at protecting and improving water resources. Whereas past stormwater programs sought to control only the quantity of runoff, recent initiatives have attempted to address water quality as well. As Gloucester County continues to grow, managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff will prove increasingly important ... and increasingly difficult. This Plan seeks to concentrate future development in areas where public facilities, such as sewer and water, are available, while preserving the County's rural character. This growth management strategy will ensure orderly development over the next twenty years, but it will also intensify the problems associated with stormwater runoff. As densities within the Development District increase, greater quantities of runoff, carrying higher pollutant loads, will result; effective stormwater planning thus becomes imperative. Furthermore, a comprehensive stormwater strategy will enhance Gloucester's ability to meet state and federal stormwater management mandates. Actually, stormwater management considerations are inherent in this Plan; this section will reiterate and clarify certain aspects of the Plan, and will outline the objectives of Gloucester's stormwater management strategy. Perhaps the most significant water quality feature of the Plan is the overriding goal of preserving the natural and rural qualities of the northern and eastern portions of the County. These areas irrpact directly on the bulk of Gloucester's water resources, including the Beaverdam Reservoir, the Poropotank River, the Dragon Run, and the extensive wetlands of the Mobjack Bay system. By concentrating growth within the Development District, this Plan will help preserve the forests, wetlands, and riparian systems of Gloucester's rural Countryside, allowing them to perform their natural stornwater management functions (for a more complete explanation of these functions, see the wetlands and Chesapeake Bay sections of the Plan). As for those areas where development is encouraged, this Plan anticipates the need for large scale regional or sub-watershed stormwater management devices. These facilities will become part of the system of utilities and services which make the Development District the most appropriate location for growth. All such utilities, taken together, will form Gloucester's water quality management program; by encouraging new and existing development to utilize services such as public water and sewer, the problems associated with failing septic systems and increasing groundwater withdrawals diminish. Growth management and storTrwater management thus act in tandem to protect Gloucester's water resources. Finally, this Plan treats stornwater management as a quality of life issue. Effectively managing stormwater runoff will prevent loss of life and property attributable to flooding. Also, by preserving and improving water quality within the County, Gloucester can sustain its close ties to the Chesapeake Bay system, and remain an attractive place to live. The overall goal of Gloucester's stormwater strategy is to manage the quality and quantity of stornwater runoff in an efficient and sustainable manner. Meeting this broad goal will require the participation of a wide array of interests, including citizens, developers, County staff, and state and federal agencies. It will also involve enactment of several specific objectives. Perhaps most inportantly, Gloucester's stornwater strategy will involve accounting for varying slopes, soil types, vegetative conditions,. and development conditions. Each of these factors impacts significantly upon stormwater management techniques. Due to their specific nature, recognition must be given to the fact that treatment methods may vary, depending on the condition of a given watershed. Gloucester's program should allow significant flexibility, as long as baseline standards are met or exceeded. The recognized need to treat stornwater on a watershed basis has driven the effort, now underway, to identify watershed boundaries within the Development District. Such identification is the first step toward a coordinated program which eliminates the problems associated with on-site management. Those problems, which have begun to manifest themselves in Gloucester County, include: insufficient long term maintenance; lack of adequate space and topography; insufficient soil conditions; and underestimation of off-site impacts. A watershed approach will help address these issues. Furthermore, watershed identification will facilitate efforts to locate stormwater management opportunities early in the planning process. By incorporating stormwater planning into its land use and transportation planning, the County will be able to preserve the most appropriate facility locations, and eliminate the confusion associated with "after the fact" stormwater planning. In terms of funding methods for constructing and maintaining a system of stormwater management facilities, a wide range of options exist. These range from general fund allocations to establishment of a stornwater utility system. The utility option became available to localities through action of the General Assembly in 1991. Several localities in Hampton Roads have chosen this route to fund stormwater management operations, and it appears to be an attractive alternative. Potential difficulties exist, however, with the administration of a nEw utility system. Gloucester is currently investigating its options to determine the best method or combination of methods for funding a stormwater management system. The County should choose the method or methods which offer the most equitable and flexible guidelines, while ensuring a secure source of maintenance funds. For the Comprehensive Plan to prove successful, efficient stormwater management must become an integral part of Gloucester's overall growth management strategy. As Gloucester continues to develop, and as the Development District becomes the focus of growth, managing runoff from inrervious cover will become more important. Among other factors discussed throughout this document, stormwater management should become a growth management consideration. That is, grcwth should only be encouraged where stormwater solutions exist prior to development. This approach will help preserve life, property, the environment, and the overall quality of life in Gloucester County. Implementation Recommendations: � Adopt and/or amend development ordinances which ensure that land use intensities are guided by the adequacy of the storm drainage system to remove runoff without endangering persons, property, or the environment. � Identify drainage basins throughout the Development District, and identify the most appropriate stornwater management technique(s) for each. � Where possible, preserve stormwater management opportunities prior to development proposals. � Develop a Countywide stornwater management plan. � Investigate options for funding a stormwater management system and incorporate the findings into a stormwater management plan. � Establish stormwater runoff control standards for all new development to prevent increases in sediment, pollutant, and toxic loadings. These standards will serve to minimize or eliminate the need for structural stormwater management devices, and should include minimizing impervious cover, preserving open space systems, and utilizing alternative paving techniques. DRAFT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA This docunent was funded, in part, by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant #NA270Z0312-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adninistration ' Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource in Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. January 14, 1994 SECTION 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY The Stormwater Management Act, � 10.1-603 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, enables localities to prepare and adopt a stormwater management plan and implementing ordinance. 1.2 FINDINGS OF FACT The waters and waterways within Gloucester County are at times subjected to flooding; that such flooding is a danger to the lives and property of the public; that such flooding is also a danger to the natural resources of the Gloucester County; that development tends to accentuate such flooding by increasing stormwater runoff, due to alteration of the hydrologic response of the watershed in changing from an undeveloped. to a developed condition; that such increased flooding produced by the development of real property contributes increased quantities of water- borne, pollutants, and tends to increase channel erosion; that such increased flooding, increased erosion, and increased pollution constitutes deterioration of the water resources of Gloucester County; and that such increased flooding, increased erosion and increased pollution can be controlled to some extent by the regulation of stormwater runoff from such development. Therefore, it is determined that it is in the public interest to establish requirements to regulate the discharge of stormwater runoff from such developments as provided in this ordinance. 1.3 PURPOSE It is the purpose of this ordinance to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls: 1. To reduce flood damage to public health, life, and property; 1 2. To minimize increased stormwater runoff from new land development where such runoff will increase flood damage; 3. To maintain the adequacy of existing and proposed culverts and bridges, dams and other structures; 4. To prevent, to the greatest extent feasible, an increase in nonpoint source pollution; 5. To maintain the integrity of stream channels for their biological functions, as well as for drainage and other purposes; 6. To reduce the impact of development upon stream erosion; and 7. To preserve and protect water supply facilities and water resources by means of controlling increased flood discharges, stream erosion, and nonpoint source pollution. 1.4 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Gloucester County designates the Director, Department of Community Development as the program administrator. 1.5 APPLICABILITY A. Except as provided for in � 1.5.B. of this ordinance, all land development projects shall comply with the requirements of this ordinance. B. The following activities are exempt from this ordinance: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted under the provisions of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops. 2 3. Single-family residences separately built and not part of a subdivision, including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached residential structures. 4. Land development projects that disturb less than one acre of land area. (NOTE: THIS COULD BE SMALLER OR CONTAIN CONDITIONS.) 5. State projects as defined in this ordinance. 1.6' COMPATIBILITY WITH OTBER PERMIT AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Approvals issued pursuant to this ordinance do not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to secure required permits or approvals for activities regulated by any other applicable code, rule, act or ordinance. If more stringent requirements concerning regulation of stormwater are contained in the other code, rule, act or ordinance, the more stringent regulation shall apply. Provisions in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 5.5) and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 7.5) of Gloucester County are part of this ordinance. 1.7 SEVERABILITY If the provisions of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of this ordinance shall be judged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order or judgement shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of this ordinance. 3 SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. "Adequate channel" means a channel that will convey the designated frequency storm event without overtopping the channel banks nor causing erosive damage to the channel bed or banks. ',Applicant" means any person submitting a stormwater management plan for approval. "Channel" means a natural stream or manmade waterway. "County" means Gloucester County. "Development" means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. "Flooding" means a volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or walls of the stream, water body or conveyance system and that overflows onto adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage. "Floodplain" means those areas adjoining a river, stream, channel, ocean, bay or lake which are likely to be covered by flooding. "Infiltration facility" means a stormwater management facility which temporarily impounds runoff and discharges it via infiltration through the surrounding soil. While an 4 infiltration facility may also be equipped with an outlet structure to discharge impounded runoff, such discharge is normally reserved for overflow and other emergency conditions. Since an infiltration facility impounds runoff only temporarily, it is normally dry during non-rainfall periods. "Inspection" means an on-site review of the project's compliance with the approved plan, the local stormwater management program, and any applicable design criteria. "Land development" or "land development project" means a manmade change to the land surface that potentially changes its runoff characteristics. "Local stormwater management program" or "local program" means a statement of the various methods employed by a locality to manage the runoff from land development projects and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspections, enforcement and evaluation. "Locality" means a county, city, or town. "Nonpoint source pollution" means pollution whose sources cannot be pinpointed but rather is washed from the land surface in a diffuse manner by stormwater runoff. "Onsite stormwater management facilities" means facilities which are designed to control stormwater runoff emanating from a specific site. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, any interstate body or any other legal entity. "Post-development" refers to conditions that reasonably may be expected or anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land. 5 "Pre-development" refers to the land use that exists at the time that plans for the land development are submitted to the locality. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing land use at the time the first item is submitted shall establish pre-development conditions. "Regional (watershed wide) stormwater management facility" or "regional facility" means a facility or series of facilities designed to control stormwater runoff from a large contributing area, although only portions of the watershed may experience land development. (NOTE: SHOULD WE DEFINE "LARGE".) "Regional stormwater management plan" or "regional plan" means a document containing material describing how runoff from open space, existing development and future planned development areas within a watershed will be controlled by coordinated design and implementation of regional stormwater management facilities. "Runoff' or "stormwater runoff' means that portion of precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or through conveyances to one or more waterways. "State project" means the construction of any facility or expansion of an existing facility including, but not limited to land clearing, soil movement, or land development, which is undertaken by any state agency, board, commission, authority or any branch of state government, including state supported institutions of higher learning. "Stormwater detention basin" or "detention basin" means a stormwater management facility which temporarily impounds runoff and discharges it through a hydraulic outlet structure to a downstream conveyance system. While a certain amount of outflow may also occur via infiltration through the surrounding soil, such amounts are negligible when compared to the outlet structure discharge rates and are, therefore, not considered in the facility's design. Since a detention facility impounds; runoff only temporarily, it is normally dry during non-rainfall periods. 6 "Stormwater management facility" means a device that controls stormwater runoff and changes the characteristics of that runoff including, but not limited to, the quantity and quality, the period of release or the velocity of flow. "Stormwater management plan" or "plan" means a document containing material for describing how existing runoff characteristics will be maintained by a land development project and comply with the requirements of this ordinance. "Stormwater retention basin" or "retention basin" means a stormwater management facility which, similar to a detention basin, temporarily impounds runoff and discharges its outflow through a hydraulic outlet structure to a downstream conveyance system. Unlike a detention basin, however, a retention basin also includes a permanent impoundment and, therefore, is normally wet, even during non-rainfall periods. Storm runoff inflows are temporarily stored above this permanent impoundment. "Subdivision" means the division of a parcel of land into three or more lots or parcels of less than five acres each for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, or, if a new street is involved in such division, any division of a parcel of land. The term includes resubdivision and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided. "Water quality volume" means the volume equal to the first 0.5 inch of runoff multiplied by the total impervious area of the land development project. "Watershed" means the total drainage area contributing runoff to a single point. 7 SECTION 3 TECHNICAL CRITERIA Each proposed land development project not exempted from this ordinance as provided in � 1.5.B shall meet the following stormwater management criteria. 3.1 QUANTITY CONTROL A. A stormwater management plan for a land development project shall be developed so that from the site, the post-development peak runoff rates from a two-year storm and a 10-year storm, considered individually, shall not exceed their respective pre-development rates. B. These design storms shall be defined as either a 24-hour storm using the rainfall distribution recommended by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service when using U.S. Soil Conservation Service methods or as the storm of critical duration that produces the greatest required storage volume at the site when using a design method such as the Rational Method. C. For purposes of computing runoff, all lands in the site shall be assumed prior to development to be in good condition (if the lands are pastures, lawns, or parks), with good cover (if the lands are woods), or with conservation treatment (if the lands are cultivated); regardless of conditions existing at the time of computation. 3.2 QUALIW CONTROL In order to enhance water quality of stormwater runoff, all stormwater management plans must provide for the control of the water quality volume. The water quality volume shall be treated by one of the following methods. A. For a detention basin, the water quality volume shall be detained and released over 30 hours. 8 1. The detention time is a brim-drawdown time and therefore, shall begin at the time of peak storage of the water quality volume in the detention basin. 2. If the above requirement would result in an outlet opening smaller than three inches in diameter or the equivalent cross sectional area, the period of detention shall be waived so that three inches will be the minimum outlet opening used. (NOTE: TBESE CRITERIA ARE CURRENTLY BEING REVISED BY THE STATE.) B. For a retention basin, the volume of the permanent pool must be at least three times greater than the water quality volume. The shape of the pond shall be to avoid short-circuiting by maximizing the distance between the pond inlet(s) and outlet. Length to width ratio of 3:1 or greater shall be provided. C. For an infiltration facility, the water quality volume must be completely infiltrated within 48 hours. Is 1. The invert of the infiltration facility must be at least four feet above the seasonal high groundwater elevation or continuous clay lens. 2. A detailed soils analysis and report shall be required at the location of the infiltration facility. The report shall contain adequate information to demonstrate that the infiltration facility is feasible. 3. Approvals will be on a case-by-case basis after technical review by the County. The objective of this review will be to avoid groundwater contamination and verify adequate operation of the infiltration facility. D. Design calculations verifying compliance with the water quality requirements shall be submitted. 3.3 REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT If a regional stormwater management plan prepared in accordance with the State Stormwater Management Regulations, has been adopted by the County for the watershed in which the proposed land development is located, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the regional watershed plan. 3.4 GENERAL CRITERIA A. Proposed residential, commercial, or industrial subdivisions shall apply these stormwater management criteria to the land development as a whole. Individual lots in new subdivisions shall not be considered separate land development projects, but rather the entire subdivision shall be considered a single land development project. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate land development and shall be used in all engineering calculations. B. Construction of stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Evidence of approval of all necessary permits shall be presented at the time application for the land disturbance permit is made. C. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with good engineering practices and that are acceptable to the County. Calculation procedures are contained in TR-20 and TR-55 manuals. D. The design of impounding structures that are not covered by the Virginia Dam Safety Regulations shall be checked by the applicant for structural integrity and floodplain impacts for the 100-year storm event. E. Outflows from a stormwater management facility shall be discharged to an adequate channel, or velocity dissipators; shall be placed at the outfall of all detention and retention basins and along the length of any outfall. channel as necessary to provide a non-erosive velocity of flow from the basin to a channel. 10 F. Land development projects must comply with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Act and attendant regulations. G. Safety measures should be incorporated into the design of all stormwater management facilities. These may include but are not limited to, safety ledges, fencing, warning signs, anti- vortex devices, staff gages indicating depth at the lowest point, and outlet structures designed to limit public access. H. If stormwater management facilities are provided through which water passes at times other than following rainfall, the County Engineer shall be consulted concerning design criteria. It is necessary for detention requirements to be met, despite the necessity of passing certain low flows. This applies to all onstrearn or online stormwater management facilities. I. Outlets from stormwater management facilities shall be designed to function without manual, electrical or mechanical controls, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. J. Detention facilities shall be designed to minimize propagation of insects, particularly mosquitos. 3.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN FLOODPLAINS A. New construction, including construction of onsite storrawater management facilities, should be avoided in floodplains. When this is unavoidable, a special examination to determine adequacy of proposed stormwater management facilities during the 10-year flood shall be required. NOTE: The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that the stormwater management facility will operate effectively and to evaluate the effect the stormwater management facility may have on the available floodplain storage. One acceptable method is to apply the 10-year design storm to both the site and to the entire watershed contributing to the floodplain, assuming that the two peak simultaneously at the point in question. The time of concentration assumed for the entire watershed should be that appropriate to the larger area, rather than the shorter period applicable to the site. B. In addition, such construction shall be in compliance with all applicable regulations under the National Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Ordinance. 3.6 NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES It is not necessary that basic requirements for water quality and quantity control be satisfied solely by means of structural methods. Non-structural practices including, but not limited to, cluster land use development, minimization of impervious surface and curbing requirements, open space acquisition, floodplain management, and protection of wetlands, steep slopes and vegetation should be coordinated with structural requirements. 12 SECTION 4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS 4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Except as provided for in � 1.5.B of this ordinance, no grading, building, or other permit shall be issued for land development unless a stormwater management plan has been submitted to, and approved by, the County. B. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project meets the criteria set forth in this ordinance. C. Failure of the applicant to demonstrate that the project meets the criteria set forth in this ordinance shall be reason to deny the applicant's underlying application for approval. 4.2 PLAN SUBMISSION A. The applicant shall submit the material required in a stormwater management plan in accordance with � 4.3 of this ordinance. B. Four (4) copies of the stormwater management plan shall be submitted. C. Fee (input from County). 4.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The following information, where applicable, shall be required for each proposed project subject to review under this ordinance. Maps, plans, designs and calculations shall be certified by a professional engineer or Class III B surveyor. A. General 13 1. Name, address and phone number of the person (see definition). 2. General description of the project. 3. General description of the erosion and sediment controls. 4. General description of temporary and permanent stormwater management facilities. 5. Project schedule, including a sequence of construction. B . Maps of the project area showing: 1 . The boundary of the drainage area tributary to the project site. .2. The location of the project relative to significant features in the general surroundings such as roads, pedestrian ways, access to the site, adjacent land uses, property lines, existing manmade structures, public facilities, landmarks, and places of architectural and historical significance. 3. Existing contours at 2-foot intervals, extending a minimum of 100 feet beyond the limits of the proposed development. Projects greater than 50 acres in size shall be tied into the County's survey control (monuments under GIS control). 4. Streams, lakes, ponds, existing drainage swales, wetlands, forested areas and other physical features within or adjacent to the project area. 5. Unique, unusual, or environmentally sensitive features that provide particular opportunities or constraints for development. 6. Locations of existing and proposed utilities, sewers and water lines. 14 7. Soil types, boundaries, and locations of areas with steep slopes or highly erodible soils. 8. Alterations in the natural terrain, cover, and grade including lawns and other landscaping. 9. Areas to be cut or filled. 10. The location of proposed buildings, roads, parking areas, and other permanent structures. 11. Final contours at 2-foot intervals, extending a minimum of 100 feet beyond the limits of the proposed development. C. Storrnwater Management Facilities 1. All stormwater management facilities must be shown on a map, including details, plan, profile, and cross sections. 2. If infiltration facilities are proposed, the locations of existing and proposed wells and septic system drain fields within 100 feet must be shown. 3. Comprehensive hydrologic and hydraulic design calculations, including all assumptions and criteria, for the pre-development and post-development conditions for the design storms specified in Section 3 of this ordinance. 4. A soils report and boring logs. 5'. A maintenance plan indicating the person permanently responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management facilities and a maintenance program for the proposed stormwater management facilities. 15 4.4 PLAN APPROVAL A. A maximum of 30 calendar days from the receipt of an application will be allowed for preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the application will be accepted for review, which will begin the 60-day review period, or rejected for incompleteness. The applicant will be informed in writing of the information necessary to complete the application. B. The 60-day review period begins on the day the complete stormwater management plan is accepted for review. At this time, an acknowledgement letter will be sent to the applicant. During the 60-day review period, the County shall either approve or disapprove the plan and communicate its decision to the applicant in writing. Approval or denial shall be based on the plan's compliance with this ordinance. C. A disapproval of a plan shall contain the reasons for disapproval. D. The applicant or any aggrieved party authorized by law may appeal the County's decision of approval or disapproval of a stormwater management plan application within 30 days after the rendering of such a decision by the County, to the circuit court of the jurisdiction in which the land development project is located. E. Judicial review shall be on the record previously established and shall otherwise be in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (� 9-6.14:1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). 4.5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Each approved stormwater management plan shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan and the local program and shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan. 16 2. The land development project shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved plan. 3. The County shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development project, to conduct periodic inspections of the project. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given the opportunity to accompany the inspector. 4. No transfer, assignment or sale of the rights granted by virtue of an approved plan shall be made unless a written notice of transfer is filed with the County and the transferee certifies agreement to comply with all obligations and conditions of the approved plan. 5. A set of certified as-built plans shall be submitted to the County upon completion of the project. 6. The person responsible for implementing the approved plan may be required to conduct monitoring and submit reports to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater management. 4.6 PERFORMANCE BOND A. All applicants shall submit to the County a performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the County's attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the County at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, after proper notice, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate actions which may be required of the applicant by the approved stormwater management plan. B. If the County takes such action upon such failure by the applicant, the County may collect from the applicant the costs of such action in excess of the amount of the security held. 17 C. Within sixty days of the completion of the requirements of the approved stormwater management plan, the bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated. D. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions of law relating to the issuance of such plans and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such plans. 4.7 CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PLAN No changes may be made to an approved plan without review and written approval by the Program Administrator. 4.8 EXCEPTIONS A. A request for an exception shall be submitted, in writing, to the County. An exception from this ordinance may be granted by the Program Administrator, provided that: (i) exceptions to the criteria are the minimum necessary to afford relief, and (ii) reasonable and appropriate conditions shall be imposed as necessary upon any exception granted so that the purpose and intent of this ordinance is preserved. B. Economic hardship is not sufficient reason to grant an exception from the requirements of this ordinance. 18 SECTION 5 FEES (NOTE: OPTIONAL. ALSO TO SET AMOUNTS.) A plan review and inspection fee shall be paid to the County at the time of submission of the stormwater management plan as follows: 1. $ for each 10,000 square feet to be graded or developed as part of the project. or 1. $ for each hour of review time. 2. This fee is an approximation of the estimated cost to the County to have its professional staff or consultants review the proposed project. - NOTE: A locality may charge applicants a reasonable fee to defray the costs of program administration, including costs associated with plan review, issuance of permits, periodic inspection for compliance with approved plans and necessary enforcement, provided that charges for such costs are not made under any other law, ordinance or program. The fee shall not exceed an amount commensurate with the services rendered and expenses incurred or the amount established in � 10.1-603.10 of the Code of Virginia, whichever is less. The maximum fee established in the Code of Virginia is $1000. 19 SECTION 6 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS A. The County's engineer or designee shall make regular inspections during all phases of construction of the stormwater management facilities. B. The applicant shall notify the County 24 hours prior to the commencement of any activity covered by this ordinance so that appropriate inspections can be made to insure compliance with this ordinance. C. Inspection reports shall be maintained as part of the land development project file. OPTIONAL: A more detailed construction inspection section might contain the following. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS A. The County's engineer or designee shall inspect all phases of development of the site including, but not limited to: 1. Completion of preliminary site preparation including stripping of vegetation, stockpiling of topsoil, and construction of temporary stormwater management facilities. 2. Completion of rough grading, but prior to placing top soil, permanent drainage or other site development improvements and ground covers. 3. Regular inspections during construction of the permanent stormwater management facilities at the following specified stages of construction. (NOTE: LEAVE OUT ANY FACILITIES NOT ACCEPTABLE TO COUNTY). 20 a. Infiltration facilities i. Completion of excavation; ii. Construction of the embankment (infiltration basins); iii. Installation of filter fabric; iv. Placement of aggregate; V. Installation of observation well; vi. Completion of surface layer; and vii. Final stabilization. b. Porous pavement facilities i. Completion of the subgrade section; I Placement of the aggregate base course; iii. Placement of the aggregate filter course; and iv. Placement of the porous asphaltic concrete surface course to ensure proper laying temperatures and compaction. C. Vegetated swales i. Completion of excavation; I Construction of check dams; and 21 iii. Final stabilization. d. Detention and retention facilities L Completion of excavation to subfoundation and when required, installation of structural supports or reinforcement for structures, including but not limited to: Core trenches for structural embankments, Inlet and outlet structures, anti-seep structures, watertight connections on pipes, and Trenches for enclosed storm drainage facilities. ii. Placement of structural fill and concrete and installation of piping and catch basins; iii. Backfill of foundations and trenches; iv. Construction of the embankment; and V. Final stabilization. 4. Upon completion of any final grading, vegetative control measures or other site restoration work done in accordance with the approved plan. B. No work shall begin on a subsequent stage until the preceding stage has been inspected and approved by the County Engineer. 22 C. The applicant shall notify the County 24 hours prior to the commencement of any activity covered by this ordinance so that appropriate inspections can be made to insure compliance with this ordinance. D. Any portion of the approved plan which does not comply with the approved plan must be corrected by the applicant within 24 hours. No work may proceed on any subsequent phase of the stormwater management plan, the subdivision or land development or building construction until the required corrections have been made. E. If at any stage of the work, the County's engineer determines that the soil or other conditions are not as stated or shown in the approved application, the County's engineer may refuse to approve further work and the County may revoke existing permits or approvals until a revised plan is submitted and approved. F. Inspection reports shall be maintained as part of the land development project file. 23 SEMON 7 MAINTENANCE A. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities, unless assumed by a governmental agency, shall remain with the property owner and shall pass to any successor or owner. If portions of the land are to be sold, legally binding arrangements shall be made to pass the basic responsibility to successors in tide. These arrangements shall designate for each parcel the property owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity to be permanently responsible for maintenance. B. In the case of developments where lots are to be sold, permanent arrangements satisfactory to the County's attorney shall be made to insure continued performance of these obligations. C. In the event that the stormwater management facilities are in need of maintenance or become a danger to public safety or public health, the responsible person shall be notified in writing, advised of the corrective measures required, and given a reasonable period of time to take necessary action. If the responsible person fails or refuses to perform such maintenance and repair, the County has the authority to perform the work and to recover the costs from the responsible person. (NOTE: PROPERTY OWNER?) D. To ensure proper performance of the stormwater management facility between scheduled maintenance operations, the owner is responsible for inspecting the stormwater management facility on a semi-annual basis and after any storm which causes the capacity of the facility to be exceeded. E. Right of entry agreements or easements may be required from the applicant for purposes of inspection and maintenance by the County Engineer or his designee. 24 SECTION 8 ENFORCEMENT A. If it is determined that there is a failure to comply with the approved plan, notice shall be served upon the applicant or person responsible for implementing the plan by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the application or plan certification, or by delivery at the land development site to the agent or employee supervising such activities. B. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. C. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the permit or approval may be revoked and the applicant or person responsible for implementing the plan shall be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance. D. Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (?) and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment for each violation, or both, as provided for in � 10.1-603.14 of the Code of Virginia. E. The program administrator may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this ordinance as provided for in � 10.1-603.14 of the Code of Virginia without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. F. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, the program administrator may bring a civil action against any person for violation of this ordinance, or any condition of the permit or approval, or any provision of the local program. The action may seek to impose of a civil penalty of not more than $2000 for each violation as provided for in � 10.1- 604.14 of the Code of Virginia. 25 G. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey this ordinance or any condition of the permit or approval or any provision of the local program, the program administrator may issue an order against or to such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection F of this section as provided for in � 10.1-604.14 of the Code of Virginia. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection F. 26 j %- le, SECTION 9 0 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect upon final passage and approval by the County. 0 0 VD, 4o, 10, ic 41, k7 t fi iU "On AN, 16 4( V Ax 7 ZZ -i J.0 .7r- 0 X, Nk V x ex @4 GLOUCESTER LEGEND: MMOMMEw LIMITED ACCESS COUNTY Immumn- MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL Old c=iEET@ MAJOR COLLECTOR 33 MINOR COLLECTOR go TRAFFIC SIGNAL A 74 1 1 GLENNN V BAT 1% 33 198 tor* 00 \DCD&CC A@ of, South Cr one inck:4000 ft. t too WA VIA Wo MA oo Pond F6 1 -01 maims E- - -1 no m lie RT F6 37 J CASH..' Cr 1% OWL RAR F60, 7 'A PAMF Mr-O I ...MARCUM % Cr -a 605 NE ..NEW ELL PION U "Is" r8 610 t) HARPERS 190-61 606 ONEA 195 PINERO 9071 DUTTON (TO '.., Woods F6101 605 0j(I F6 -0-61 to WOODS F6_0_31 k* Burke CROSS ROADS Ponof 2 lF6g3�)WQ_aas Ra Rd 6112 F6 101 MES ST (0q F6121 ail M60 9 615 olt BE MARVIEL 61 0 E SIGNIPIN _j RK' Cow Uj A ..... C13 669 669 k TAL' U) 4610 12n KIN !AN GLOUC STEIR I Z Uj "0 INt I tA 14 MATHEWS ? Co. W ILLE.- R"v 6 _j 7 111 LO 81ond SASSAFRA5 WARE % NEC 16061 LAMWT Alw*Lo OPTION ALLMONDSVIL tit CHLEY PT BELROI % ILEYS SHOR WAHOS 1 5 49, jARvI3 PT g6) __j poho ROANES WARE NECK 3 PT INNAO *DAN WINDMILL 14 ... . .. .... PT 6 SRI 17 Alobj,70 SELD64; A 'K.M. BOY 712 $ -- ----------- % CLAY CLOPTO@N, BANK 0 NAXERA'. WHITE MARSH 7 TOW STAKE PT 6 4 caucus SEvEN CEDAR PT Gum PT BRAYSHORE Boy -,CbXE PARK , PAUD PT % fat I D G"E CDPT SD400L NECK Ball, 8R FIT TLIRTLE NECK PT D11 RY GLASS 63 srufwp PT sever/1' Rivef 63RI CfW PT PT K)CK PT SLISH Klng&Qu6en_C T k_ 4- 13011 GREEN cl -AQ P 7 L7] % -WIC SEVE 6FS-41 I .EST so. 6156 W!Zl 13 W r -G Gr CARMINES d 0 LANDING 121 i A In ARYUS IMP 4 r64A ' C. 0 641 FG-4-01 19 t. RRIN KELLERl\%C.0 C'@, TIOEM L N 11 646 0 C, ISLAND 4 BENA 0 64 \v@ 1 \vi A `CUISA ISL NO SANDY PT @`ALLENS CZ4:D- 4 ISLAND CURRENT ,i%rer .... . 1.1 ___'-@GMNES PT PLAN \.GLOUCESTER POINT Ic 0 1/2 2.11#A yo r I INSET 17 0 4,000 1 QOOjO for 0 17 M LEGEND: GLOUCESTER LIMITED ACCESS MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY MINOR ARTERIAL ------- MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR COLLECTOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL I-V 'GLENN Or 74 1 BATT 33 198 DC D&CC -4000 ft. one Inck. PIN 09 F6101 E- F6-3-71 CASH AT ED crt F6-0-11 OWL TRAR ...... PAMPA -L ..MARCUM ff Cr F@,es UPTON fell r8 610 6 0 HARPERS IFOQ PINERO .DNEA@ 0 14 DUTTO (To a F610 05 A Ob F6 -0-61 r.. r 0 '031 7 Burke W ODS A Pond 602 CROSSROADS RA. All =609 6=12) MES Tn.R .9 14 17 ('09 % E!9 pq C6g MARL FIE1301, 0 SIGNPINE ow -j ARK co N TAL' 669 16-1-31 F61-51 W ( z ..,."0 Aft n 7z Uj GLOUC 'S'TEIR 0 INETTA U3 w EEO J6141 .4 At A TH U) Co. Uj A ZZ t 7 ... @3 75 1 '3 LO T .j SASSAFRA$ NAR )p NE Q BELLAMY AIRFIE ALLMONDS 4, HORSE 0C SCHLEY PT BEI-Rdl 0, ILEYS S 614 615 CAPAHOSK. D AVIS W7:7j 6 ROANES WARE NECK ROAMS WINDMILL PT WHARF PT 14 1,001 4 F6 311 17 A40bjac* po@dl Bay SELDEii 712 ----- --- % 99-% e CLA OPT LA Ell m AM BANK NAXERA*- wHITE TOW SrAKE MARSH 7 PT 644 SEvEN CEDAR PT GUM couc's PT BRAYSHORE BOY C E PARK MUD PT BOY RIDGES COOPT TiATLE NECK PT GLASS PT 69 Severn River BLUNOE 4G STUMP PT RI T lei, CEDAR PT p locK Pr BUSH King& Que en- Co. Air III, I, ljgi mp C, IIZO RE LAD G E Rm 71 -WIC \SEVE 304 Ism wEST .-ND co/0"pa" 6- > CAFMH"E3 Sw-p 52 cr L..O..G In* 0 I k HILL AdOrl's a) G ARYLIS 216 %0 C, 0 64 1 @PERRIN lKLELLERCC TCEMLL F -0-31 PURTAN -0@ 646 CO. ISLAND 0 6 6 06 V LAND SANDY PT 0 e0ALLENS J644 ISLAND .\ GAINES PT 'GLOuCESTER ALTERNATIVE PLAN) POINT -yo Jk or 1 1@2 2.1141 INSET 0- 4,000 LEGEND: GLOUCESTER ammmiiiiIiiiiiiiiii, LIMITED ACCESS MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY MINOR ARTERIAL 90 pro MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR COLLECTOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL GLENNS 3c BATT 74 198 DC D &CC fk,41 no Inck:4000 ft. cr 0 Pond -- .- 11 1. : . r6lol Po@d OAT CASH- cr v I ., F601 00(, limll"ll OWL TRAW i % Fr. 0 11 ..,HARCUM F6551 '-..NEW C' UPTON r8 0 610 a 06 HARPERS 606 IDNE81 PINERO I OUTTO TO 35) Wo. d 0051 r6061 CR WOODS f6031 '14 RU21 OSSROA S'@. ond - -------- Rd ck 610 9 MES $TO 14 76 m6l 0 g7, I? r6-651 R MARLFIEL 0 SIGNPINE Cow W ARK Cr, m ". 111"' P1119 n ME, 3 TAL' W 610 .0. 03 Ai STE"R W I, INETTA 14 (n MATHEWS If IL bi LO T ARE NECK 16 4 f9061 AWNFIELO I I ALLMONDS 60,.. F6181 -Fri 9-71 N06 I MORSE SCHLEY PT BE ZANONi SHORT LA@k 11 EYS 14 CAPA SIC jARviS PT HO ISN 106% go'.. RO ",N ESfr-,@ A: WARE NECK R.OIA.".S WINDMILL PT IF 14 -p Cr 10 4 ps mobjack 631 SELDEi44 Bay 616 CLAY C TCf". BANK W NAXERA'. UZI m 7 TOW STAKE Hl@`E ARSH PT F6331, 44 19-3-61 63 (mm 1-@ C,7UCU., SEVEN CEDAR PT GUM PT SRAYSHORE PARK Bay Bay MUD PT RIDGES CmPT --, SCHOOL NECK TURTLE NECK PT py 'IRDINARY @7\\ GLASS 9671 2K 1 3 . \ STUMP PT Sevefn BLUNDERING 13 FIT CEDAR PT ROCK PT BUSH U /or crv Ktag Qua a a- Co. 30 r"'ns 4-1 .30.- C, GREEN PT LAD WIC PIC F684 1304 \bLVL 6 WEST "'. 1 .1. 1 END @13:Q-N Cole,,,M W h I / @@@ I " > CARMINES 1311 in* Fe 0 LANDING Ado (D ACHILLES rT < ARYLIS 2j6 0 K@E El 64 KELLERC(: :Tm- TIDEIALLI r -PERRIN PUR f4b -02 46 Eno SENA AND 65 SANDY PT GUBA ISLAND 1244 0 @`ALLENS 16421 ISLAND V, r e 0&-l a@:I-r CESTER GAINES PT ALTERNATIVE N@ I . 7 PLAN 00 PONT I--,' yo 1/2 2.11" INSET I 17 0- 4,000 qOO0 fev GLOUCESTER POINT TRANSPORTATION & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY Gloucester County Office of Conuittinity Development Gloucester, Virginia March 1994 W-600 WIMP Grant Program FY 1993 (I bq 17 ndpit X . ..... i al -7 ------- Z- el u 4 Ti r key V R INV ot P WA-MA $@R e D n C tE G10 U-6ster Poin "Yj Tin I :%A. R F M Moore WT, + 49 AV4L turldej, ill P04 Quaitv's -c)ast:ai '40 G1 uteester I Wt 4 @ ew. 9 41 4NA-2-/uz03i-)-0j f on, Oft ice ?4 10 Manaqeme!@T- inder the c-oastai Zen AME-n de-:1 - Adninisrrat-, C'n "V J, DRAFT Transportation Modelling Analysis Gloucester County, Virginia March 1994 Prepared with the assistance of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission VCRNIP Grant Program FY 1992-1993 This document was funded in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant # NA27OZO312-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended 4 February 11, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Gloucester Study Staff BY: Camelia Ravanbakht RE: Gloucester Study The 2015 traffic projections were revised due to two errors depicted in the network (2 link distances). Therefore, the MINUTP model was performed for both trend and accelerated growth scenarios for daily, morning and evening peak hours. the following items are attached for your review: o Traffic Analysis zones (2 maps). o Summary Table showing 1990, 2010 and 2015 land use and travel demand data (table). o 1990 Base - daily, morning and evening peak hours traffic volumes (3 maps). o 2015 Trend Growth - daily, morning and evening peak hours traffic projections (3 maps). o 2015 Accelerated Growth - daily, morning and evening peak hours traf f ic projections (3 maps). o 1990 socioeconomic data used in MINUTP model ( table). o 2015 land use data developed by LDR (table). d8 446 3Z 331 3 44 34 41 4 3 44 3 33 344 3 8 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES FOR GLOUCESTER COUNTY SUBAREA COMPUTER MODELING STUDY BASE RUN 10/13/93 \7 43 4 344 4 437 VIA, Traffic Analysis Zone 4 4 6 Gloucester County 0 5000 10000 TABLE GLOUCESTER COUNTY SUBAREA COMPUTER MODELING STUDY LAND USE AND TRAVEL DEMAND 1990,2010,2015 Land Use Data Daily Travel Demand (vpd) Retail Total Coleman Upriver Total Land Use Scenario Population Employment Employment Bridge Crossing Demand 1990 Base 30,131 1,777 9,154 Actual Counts . 26,000 ... 26,000 Model Assignments 26,200 --- 26,200 2010 PATS 37,700 5,300 13,300 With Upriver Crossing @@4 460 18,700@1- 64,100 Without Upriver Crossing 57,100 --- 57,100 2015 Trend Growth With Upriver Crossing 55,613 6,193 19,239 51,400 39,300 90,700 Without Upriver Crossing 55,615 6,712 19,239 70,500 -- 70,500 2015 Accelerated Growth With Upriver Crossing 86,461 10,866 32,755 53,400 43,600 97,000 Without Upriver Crossing 86,481 10,993 32,755 78,500 --- 78,500 L- I Notes: - vpd:vehicles per day - PATS : Peninsula Area Transportation Study - 2015 model assumed 2015 projectd land use data for Gloucester and York Counties only; the model used 2010 projected land use for other localities in the Peninsula region. Prepared By: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, February 1994. 411 M4 ARK 17 GLOUCESTER, CITY HALL" G 321 Ix RIE 615 SHOR LANE SASSAFRAS WHITE fMARSH BELRO NEST ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON con COKE 6 34 6 A 1990 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES XXOO - 1990 COUNTS (ROUNDED) 341 w BE 444 > XXXX - 1990 ASSIGNMENTS TIDE 433 M 4A 314 317 332 lo cv ARK GLOUCEST CITY HALL ID 4 ID ID lj HIIRT LANE 614 lk R-TE 615 Ae 346 SAFRAS w I E M R BELROI NEST iziv ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON cl lo 1990 COKE .4 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT MORNING PEAK HOUR 4, TIDE 4w 313 476 31. ;13 307 _312 ARK 347 CGLIOTYUCES A IL Lo lo ,a W HORT LANE 333 RTC 615 lb SASSAFRAS HITE BELROI NEST 6NA RS ALMONDSVILLE 'CLOPTON cm, 44) COKE 6 342 6 156- 1990 N4 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ID EVENING PEAK HOUR 4, @plm u TIDEM z < x u 73 14 313 7 it ARK 7 GLOUCESTER CITY HALL' no lo HORT LANE RTE 61 64 lo 443 w SASSAFRAS HITE BELROI EST (,.,A MARSH ALMONDSVILLE 43 CLOPTON ,D Ij 2015 COKE 44 A DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTION lo TREND GROWTH w U3 WITH UPRIVER CROSSING 90 ZB :p TIDE 4" vi w co u f., cl@ 4X 313 C, ARK N7 GLOUCEST CITY HALL* 311 HORT LANE PrC 614 RTF 5 Qr WHITE SASSAFRAS BELRDI NEST MARSH 6% ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON 2015 CDKE 6a6 3Q Ac DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC N4 PROJECTION 3 MORNING PEAK HOUR e, 4,,g BEN TREND GROWTH WITH UPRIVER CROSSING TIDEM1 M z 3P tj ARK 2 GLOUCEST CITY HALL- 61., RTE '5 HORT LANE Qr up 336 SASSAFRAS W141 TE MARSH ALMONDSVILLE BELRDI NEST (611 CLOPTON 2015 C13KE 636 342 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION EVENING PEAK HOUR TREND GROWTH 4,@j 345 B WITH UPRIVER CROSSING TIDE 83 u 14 13 2 ARK 17 GLOUCESTER CITY HALL Rl lo RTE 61 HORT LANE 614 34D ASSAFRAS HITE ALMONDSVILLE BELROI NEST n MARS CLOPT 443 COKE 6 2015 3e DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTION 4 TREND GROWTH .3 o@ WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING jZ10,1 TI ko 4n z m u w w 2 . 6.x 23 ik X3 m 312 10 ARK Ro%u 17 35 GLOUCESTER CITY HALL 10 HORT LANE RTE 615 10 SASSAFRAS WHITE @4 MARS ALMONDSVILLE BELROI NEST it,5_ (0*1 CLOPTON M s 44 2015 COKE 36 A DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION MORNING PEAK HOUR +Q ell. TREND GROWTH BE TIDE WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING C3 O@ 474 4 214 312 12 ARK GLOUCEST CITY HALL IV- HEIRT LANE RTE 6 5 325 I.b SASSAFRAS WHITE MARSH BELROI NEST Rj%7 6%A ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON COKE 2015 A DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION U3 EVENING PEAK HOUR TREND GROWTH BE WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING TIDEm 476 34 13 It ARK GLOUCESTER CITY HALL' RTE 61 HORT LANE '514 o SASSAFRAS HITE BELROI EST tit r. MARSH ALMONDSVILLE CL13PT 2015 COKE 44 636 A DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTION ACCELERATED GROWTH 343 WITH UPRIVER CROSSING 4X N TIDEM x L3 w E3w D 473 M ID 1 7 ID ARK 3n 7 7 1 GLOUCEST CITY HALL no 4Q xf ce R sit RIE 5 HD;?T LANC on SASSAFRAS M, WHITE ALMONDSVILLE BELRD] NEST 9.v@ 6 MARSH 43 CLOPTDN m, 2015 CITKE 'So's ACf DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC 3. PROJECTION MORNING PEAK HOUR a: ACCELERATED GROWTH RENA 2,3 WITH UPRIVER CROSSING TIBEMIL In to w C13 4n 4A 3V X2 4 M25 4 ARK 1%tirr M7 & GLOUCESTE CIT y HALL .6 w lp, 311 La FORT LANE Rrc RTE S SSAFRAS WHITE ARSH m BELROI NEST ALMONDSVILLE LOPTON m 4 2015 CD E 114 c61@6 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION 3 EVENING PEAK HOUR 4, ACCELERATED GROWTH bl, B TID 'WITH UPRIVER CROSSING z mg w 2 ik 0 m w M 476 13 00 lo w ARK 17 GLOUCESTER CITY HALL 6 4e w w k RIC 615 HORT LANE 6 ik SASSAFRAS HITE MARSH a, BELROI NEST ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON om COKE 6.7,5 2015 4W DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTION i 3 w ACCELERATED GROWTH 3 +@o WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING Pc r B Lj I o(x u 4N 315 474 313 30 oe 3.1 lo ARK Roqu/ U7 3al 17 GLOUCESTER CITY HALL -330 %o 211 P f HORT LANE J4 RTE 615 4.1 232 Z lo u. SASSAFRAS WHITE c' BELROI NEST ARS ALMONDSVILLE CLOPTON 2015 COKE -)"16,96 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION 33 ,7- MORNING PEAK HOUR 3.5 ACCELERATED GROWTH WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING TI u m 31, 313 it ARK j 7 GL13MUCEST CITY HALL' 33. 4Q Li u L'i HOR LANE RYE 5 SASSAFRAS WHITE cz BELROI NEST RSH b*l m ALMONDSVILLE 45 CLOPTON 10 14 COKE AC 2015 444 w DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION EVENING PEAK HOUR ACCELERATED GROWTH 4, 345 BEN WITHOUT UPRIVER CROSSING TIDEMI M z ;c u M w 0 u m m Gloucester socioeconomic data for MINUTP runs 12/2/93 TAZG390 Population Total Emp White Collar Emp Retail Emp Student Attendance Households 278 420 2832 2122 485 190 306 303 0 159 307 1533 525 320 35 600 308 278 9 8 9 101 309 1377 0 594 310 2200 216 182 7 1476 853 311 901 0 354 312 995 210 26 2 498 313 895 108 33 27 348, 314 384 27 24 128 315 333 5 4 5 210 325 135 20 18 5 65 326 442 560 488 26 632 110 327 210 63 58 84 328 247 171 115 87 109 329 69 0 28 3301 11101 01 252 331 101 82 73 61 87 332 91 0 361 333 142 0 56 334 2111 0 78 335 166 0 60 336 11 0 5 337 6 0 1765 3 338 39 271 24 24 17 339 2611 0 109 340 131 0 52 341 480 642 423 16 176 342 0 28 26 12 0 343 87 89 80 67 730 41 344 53 0 24 345 723 347 305 285 286 346 27601 761 477 303 1187 347 388 146 106 5 151 433 2189 284 124 9 631 856 435 1201 839 682 181 552 436 1538 0 655 437 1724 4561 48 2 455 757 438 574 112 100 46 250 439 625 0 294 441 494 0 239 442 339 0 147 443 769@ 272 .129 65 271 444 821 01 325 445 1221 0 490 446 1112 325 124 11 397 447 471 0 1591 30131 9154 6120 1777 5689 12443 2015 Land Use (Trend and Accelerated Growth and Buildout, with and without upriver crossing Trend With Trend Without Accelerated With Accelerated Without Buildout Zone Pop WCErn RetEm Emp Pop WcErn RetEm Emp Pop WCErn RetEm Emp Pop WCEm I RetEm Emp Pop WCErn RetEm Emp 278 686 2518 617 3091 669 2414 593 2965 1008 2544 625 3124 917 2548 626 3129 2389 1914 470 2351 306 527 15 11 20 437 15 11 20 666 37 26 47 498 37 26 47 664 235 182 267 307 4346 445 300 546 2562 445 300 546 7208 467 315 573 3902 467 315 573 11884 766 590 867 308 447 23 16 29 322 23 16 29 649 44 30 56 417 44 30 56 961 235 182 267 309 2386 Is 11 20 1779 is 11 20 3316 37 26 47 2184 37 26 47 3408 279 216 317 310 5053 192 129 236 3206 192 129 236 7998 214 145 263 4599 214 145 263 12762 324 249 367 311 1340 15 11 20 1044 15 11 20 1813 37 26 47 1266 37 26 47 2526 279 216 317 312 2564 186 125 1230 1691 186 125 230 3902 209 141 258 2272 209 14l 258 4121 324 249 367 313 1013 103 70 128 913 103 70 128 1176 124 85 155 988 124 as 155 1366 324 249 367 314 451 16 11 20 366 16 11 20 588 36 25 47 429 36 25 47 790 279 216 317 315 717 20 14 25 586 20 14 25 920 41 28 52 673 41 28 52 922 235 175 267 325 195 42 19 57 173 49 23 67 229 88 40 115 188 92 43 122 275 341 154 441 326 434 463 209 598 412 469 212 - 608 666 506 229 656 586 511 232 663 1617 1115 504 1441 327 830 131 101 150 776 131 101 150 1723 231 178 263 1474 231 178 263 5685 464 357 525 328 744 291 132 379 705 339 153 439 1432 545 247 707 1242 576 261 747 4470 1024 463 1323 329 127 64 29 86 90 82 38 110 183 169 77 221 117 181 82 237 273 339 154 440 330 825 310 141 403 793 403 182 521 1113 805 364 1041 1008 865 391 1118 2262 1022 463 1323 331 832 582 193 1768 781 439 160 1121 1723 1191 348 4324 1476 990 303 3395 5669 14175 5807 26923 332 217 15 11 20 137 15 11 20 344 37 26 47 198 37 26 47 552 279 216 317 333 490 64 29 86 442 82 38 110 986 169 77 221 817 181 82 237 3069 339 154 440 334 295 76 58 87 285 76 58 87 444 176 136 200 403 176 136 200 1089 463 356 525 335 493 394 179 512 466 512 232 664 993 1024 463 1325 854 1100 497 1423 3201 2730 1234 3527 336 376 330 150 428 346 426 193 553 878 854 386 1104 752 918 415 1186 3219 2390 1080 3086 337 100 15 11 20 54 15 11 20 190 37 26 47 193 37 26 47 345 279 216 317 338 239 288 131 376 285 367 166 477 525 714 324 926 1003 768 347 993 1786 1706 771 2204 339 386 15 11 20 327 15 11 20 505 37 26 47 508 37 26 47 680 279 216 317 340 483 15 11 20 390 15 11 20 944 37 26 47 712 37 26 47 2653 279 216 317 341 1369 875 395 1131 1286 986 446 1275 2711 1472 666 1904 2330 1549 699 1999 8628 1364 617 1764 342 163 460 207 595 203 588 267 762 398 1155 523 1495 795 1240 561 1603 1445 2390 1080 3086 343 412 422 192 548 486 525 238 681 861 982 445 1272 1620 1051 475 1360 2851 2048 926 2645 344 210 15 11 20 185 is 11 20 393 37 26 47 556 37 26 47 957 279 216 317 345 981 186 85 243 1425 210 95 275 1388 322 146 417 2081 337 153 438 2090 339 154 441 346 3013 1015 459 1312 3194 1138 515 1472 3179 1687 763 2181 3462 1770 800 2286 3210 1364 617 1764 347 478 326 80 400 468 221 55 274 634 355 88 438 590 355 88 438 1296 1077 265 1323 433 2464 715 324 927 3050 861 390 1114 3004 1497 678 1940 3921 1596 722 2063 3817 1364 617 1764 435 1410 1005 454 1300 1508 1107 501 1433 1501 1564 707 2023 1654 1633 738 2110 1540 1706 771 2204 436 2003 76 58 87 2635 76 58 87 2584 176 136 200 3575 176 136 200 3527 463 356 525 437 2113 389 262 477 2145 443 298 544 2379 536 361 657 2413 536 361 657 2264 633 488 717 438 2740 158 109 199 6059 158 109 199 5795 251 170 312 10994 251 170 312 11507 324 249 367 439 859 15 11 20 876 15 11 20 1000 37 26 47 1020 37 26 47 966 279 216 317 441 954 15 11 20 998 15 11 20 1322 37 26 47 1371 37 26 47 1357 279 216 317 442 2033 70 48 87 1649 70 48 87 4370 164 110 200 3226 164 110 200 8543 0 0 525 443 1718 621 281 804 1964 741 336 960 3226 1271 575 1644 5783 1349 611 1745 9902 1022 463 1323 444 1984 76 58 87 3387 76 58 87 3550 176 136 200 5732 176 136 200 5927 463 356 525 445 1810 15 11 20 1881 15 11 20 2418 164 110 200 2501 164 110 200 2455 279 216 317 446 1364 618 349 1500 1293 419 305 596 1901 854 593 1371 1688 577 365 1157 3993 1397 821 3177 447 939 76 58 87 886 76 58 87 1725 176 136 200 1493 176 136 200 5141 463 356 525 55613 13791 6193 19239 55615 14634 6712 19239 86461 23323 10866 327551 RrdRi I)q7A'> I moo., -I irnn4,i 744on 0 V. APPENDIX ' 0 A Appendix A LIST OF STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IWCLVED IN STORWATER MANAGEMENr .State Agencies 1) DEPARTMENT OF EWIRONMENTAL QUALITY - WATER DIVISION (DEQ) 202 N. 9th Street, Suite 900 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-4500 DEQ Tidewater Regional Office Pembroke II, Suite 310 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 (804) 552-1840 Role related to storrrwater: o Issues Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permits Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to limit the discharge of pollution into streams, rivers, and bays. In 1987, the CWA was amended, requiring EPA to regulate stornwater discharges under the NPDES Program. under this amended federal program, localities having populations over 100,000 must develop stormwater management plans and obtain discharge permits for stormwater outfalls. In Virginia, DEQ is authorized by the EPA to administer this NPDES program and is also responsible for the implementation of the federally mandated program for storrrwater discharges. DEQ calls its program the Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination Systein (VPDES) and issues VPDES permits to localities for discharges from large municipal storrrwater systems and to industrial facilities for the discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activities into streams and rivers. EPA regulations define 11 categories of industrial activities. Construction activities that result in the disturbance of five acres or more and have a point source discharge of stormwater to state waters are considered industrial activity and must obtain a VPDES permit. The VPDES permits issued by DEQ for storriwater discharges must be in accordance with the stormwater regulations developed by EPA and EPA maintains the authority to-review any applications and permits. (Major dischargers require EPA review). o Issues Virginia Water Protection Permits (VWP) Section 401 of the Clean water Act requires any applicant applying for a federal permit or license to obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification verifying that the water quality concerns of the state will be complied with before undertaking any activity which could result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. This certification becomes part of the issued federal permit. A federal permit will not be issued without this certification fram the state. In Virginia, DEQ is authorized to issue these 401 Water Quality Certificates. However, in 1989 the Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWP) was created which constitutes the Water Quality Certification required under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, DEQ now issues VWP permits in place of the 401 Water Quality Certifications. A VWP permit is required for any stornwater management activity or facility that involves the discharge or placing of any material into or adjacent to state waters, including wetlands. An application to the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for a permit through the Joint Permit Process (involving COE, VMRC, & DEQ) would require a Virginia Water Protection Permit from DEQ before the permit would be issued. A VWP permit would also be required for any stormwater management facility proposed to be placed within a perennial stream. o Participates in the joint permit review process DEQ conducts a joint application review process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Virginia Marine Resources Ccrmnission (VMRC) for construction/discharge into all waters of the Commonwealth, tidal wetlands, and bottans of waterways through Virginia. Through the joint permit review process, DEQ reviews applications for storrrwater outfalls proposed to discharge into state waters and looks at the contents of the stormwater discharge that would be released and issues Virginia Water Protection Permits accordingly. 2) DEPARTMENr OF ODNSERVATION AND RECREATION - DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION (DCR-DSWC) 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, Virginia 23219-2094 (804) 786-2064 Role related to 'storrwater: o Review state agency storrrwater management plans DCR-DSCW reviews all state agency stormwater management plans (for projects disturbing one or more acres). Stormwater management plans must be approved by DCR before a state agency may begin any land disturbing activity. o Develop regulations establishing technical standards and minimum requirements for local stormwater management programs The Virginia Stormwater Management Act gives local governments the authority to establish stormwater management plans and adopt local ordinances requiring the control and treatment of stormwater runoff. This authority is optional. Localities are not required to adopt a local stormwater management program. Hcwever, if a locality does establish - a local program, the minimum requirements contained in the state regulations must be mt. DCR-DS(W has the responsibility of developing these state regulations establishing the technical criteria and minimum requirements for local stormwater management programs. o Review local stormwater management programs DCR-DSCK reviews those local stormwater management programs that have been established for consistency with state regulations. o Review local erosion and sediment control (E&SC) programs DCR conducts periodic reviews of local erosion and sediment control programs for compliance with the mininm standards contained in the state E&SC regulations. Minimum Standard 19 (MS 19) addresses stormwater and requires that properties and waterways downstream from nEw develognent sites shall be protected from erosion due to increases in the volume, velocity, and peak flow rate of stormwater runoff. In the absence of a local stormwater management program, certain criteria apply to prevent stormwater from overtopping streambanks or eroding the channel bed. o Provide technical assistance and training to local governments DCR provides technical assistance and training relating to stornwater management to local governments and responds to complaints. 3) CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE BOARD AND DEPARTMENT (CBLAB & CLBAD) 805 E. Broad Street, Suite 701 Richmond, Virginia 23219 1-800--Ches-Bay Role related to stormwater: o Develop stormwater management criteria The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act) was enacted as a land use management program, recognizing the link between land use and water quality, for the protection of the Chesapeake Bay from nonpoint source pollution. Local governments in Tidewater Virginia are required to adopt local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Programs that are consistent with state regulations. The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board is responsible for the developnent of state regulations establishing minimum performance standards including stormwater management criteria which must be met when developing (or redeveloping) lands designated as Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The regulations also address the placement of stormwater management facilities and prohibit them from from being placed in resource protection areas, a component of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. o Review local Chesapeake Bay Preservation programs for consistency with state regulations, including storrrwater management requirements The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board, with assistance from the Department, reviews local government Chesapeake Bay Preservation programs to ensure consistency with the minimum requirements contained in the state regulations. For new development, the post-development nonpoint source pollutant load shall not exceed the pre-developnent load base upon the average land cover condition for a locality. Redevelopment of a site not currently served by water quality best management practices shall achieve at least a 10% reduction of nonpoint source pollution in runoff compared to the existing runoff load from the site. The regulations allow for several mechanisms to comply with the stormwater management provisions. The most caamon approaches are for localities to require on-site controls or compliance with a regional stormwater management plan. Localities also have the option Of adopting the state Stormwater Management Regulations along with any additional provisions necessary to meet the water quality requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations. o Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments in the implementation of local storrrwater management requirements The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department provides technical assistance to localities. Engineers and planners at CELAD provide guidance on storirwater calculations, develop custanized stormwater calculation worksheets, provide recaamendations for stornwater BMPs, conduct site visits if requested, conduct advisory site plan review, and provide stormwater management training to local goverment staff. The Department also provides each locality with a Local Assistance Manual which includes information and guidance on meeting the stornwater criteria of the program. CBLAD's grant program provides funding assistance for stormwater research projects, development of stormwater management plans, and other stormwater manageinent related activities. o Responsible for ensuring local government compliance with the Act and Regulations Enforcement of the stormwater management requirements of the local Chesapeake Bay Programs is the responsibility of each local government. The authority for this enforcement is under the local governments' own land use ordinances. The Board and Department issue no permits for stormwater discharge or runoff and have no direct enforcement authority over specific stornwater management requirements of the program. The Board, however, is authorized to take administrative and legal actions to ensure that local governments comply with provisions of the Act and Regulations. 4) VIRGINIA MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION (VMRC), Habitat Management Division 2600 Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 756 Newport News, Virginia 23607 (804) 247-2200 Role relating to stornwater: o Issues subaqueous permits for the encroachment of stormwater management facilities into state owned subaqueous waters and for stormwater outfall pipes discharging into state cwned waters. VMRC conducts the joint application revieq process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for construction and discharge into waters of the Ccimmonwealth, tidal wetlands, and bottoms of waterways throughout Virginia. VMRC, in consultation with the COE and DEQ, issues subaqueous permits for stormwater management facilities or outfall pipes proposed to be encroaching and/or discharging into state owned subaqueous grounds (perennial streams) and has oversight authority over local wetlands boards. Federal Agencies 1) ENVIROMERrAL PROTWrION PGENCY (EPA) Region III 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 Role related to stormwater: o Responsible for development of a phased approach to regulating stormwater discharges under the NPDES permit program EPA is the principal federal environmental regulatory agency. Regarding stormwater management, EPA is responsible for the development of regulations establishing permit application requirements for stormwater discharges from municipal separate stormwater systems serving populations of 100,000 or more and for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities. EPA has authorized DEQ to administer the federal NPDES program (established by the Clean Water Act to limit discharge of pollution into streams, rivers and bays) and has given responsibility for the implementation of the federally mandated program for stormwater discharges to DEQ. EPA maintains authority to review any applications or permits. (For more information on this program see the DEQ section). o ReviEws major stormwater dischargers NPUES permit applications EPA has delegated the administration of the federal NPDES permitting program to DEQ, however major dischargers in Virginia require EPA reviEw. 2) U.S. ARMY CIORPS OF EMINEERS (COE) (Norfolk District) 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 (804) 441-7652 Role related to storrrwater: o Issues permits for placement of storrrwater management facilities and stormwater discharges into wetlands and waters under Federal jurisdiction The Army Corps of Engineers participates in the joint permit process with the Virginia Department of Envirorrnental Quality (DEQ) and the Virginia Marine Resources Camnission (VMRC). The Corps reviews permit applications for compliance with federal regulations and issues permits, in consultation with DEQ and VMRC, for storrrwater discharges and storrrwater BMP placement impacting jurisdictional wetlands and rivers. The Corps may not issues a federal permit until the DEQ has issued a Virginia Water Protection Permit. 3) FEDERAL EMEFGENCY MANAGEMENr AGENCY (FEMA) Region III 105 South Seventh Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 931-9418 Role related to stormwater: o Provides incentive for communities to adopt stormwater management programs, plans, and ordinances FEMA, through the NFIP - Community Rating System (CRS), provides points to participating localities for performing certain activities and providing certain services to their comminities. Depending upon the amount of points earnedf flood insurance rates are reduced between 5-45% for residents in the participating locality. Regarding stormwater management, points are given to localities for the adoption of stormwater management ordinances and developnent of stormwater management plans. This program is voluntary, not mandatory, and the reduction in flood insurance is the incentive for localities to address issues relating to flooding, such as stormwater management. 4) U.S. SOM OONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS) Culpeper Building, Suite 209 1606 Santa Rosa Road Richmond, Virginia 23229 Williamsburg Office: (804) 564-1870 Role related to stormwater: o Provides advisory storimater management assistance to farmers and local governments, if requested. Soil Conservation Service maintains local offices which assist farmers in a variety of areas including stormwater management and the developnent of erosion control plans and projects. SCS is advisory only, not a regulatory agency. NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111909 1