Entry 317 of 519
By Carol Lindstrom On July 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM
The bulk of the pages provided in the DCR report have to do with Plan Reviews and Site Visit Checklist for specific sites. Note that this is an evaluation of the Town of Christiansburg's peformance. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Town of Christiansburg to be sure that things are done in such a manner as to protect citizens.

However, these issues, if correctly dealt with by the Town serve to benefit both citizens and developers. Doing something the RIGHT way, the first time, is something that I was raised up to believe. Only partially doing a job, or doing a job poorly simply means you will have to deal with it at some point in the future. In situation such as the management of Stormwater, it is not only the Town that pays for errors, it is citizens. If things are not done properly at the beginning and problems occur, YOUR TAXMONEY is what will have to be used to fix the problem, if it gets fixed. Alternately, it is your out of pocket expenses to replace and repair, it is your insurance rates going up, it is your property values going down. And, to be affected by these things, you do not have to live on an affected property, you only have to live near it.

Shortcuts and doing only the minimum the law requires is a bit less than taxpayers have a right to expect from government. I think it would be a good idea for elected officials to do a more thorough review of Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater ordinances to see where the minimum is just maybe...not enough. That would be a good review of at least one part of the code.

The proposed recodification of the Code that is suppose to be in the works would simply make sure that the Town Code meets the minimum standards as required by the State. What Town Council needs to take a close look at is where in the State Codes they are allowed to do more than meet that minimum and determine if THOSE areas should be revised.

Plan Review MS Checklist (I am only including those areas which receive NO answers instead of the desired YES ones):
  • AEP Tech Drive Station. Sec. 19 of this contains the NO's that were noted:
  • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
  • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
  • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
  • Comment: Additionally, there is the following comment: "No supporting offsite receiving channel calculations found for 2 of the 4 outfalls on site. Outfalls of bioretention BMP are not supported.
  • Christiansburg Aquatic Center Multiple NO's found:
    • Sec.1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 6: Are detailed drawings in the plans?
    • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
    • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
    • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
    • Comment: No analysis of adequacy of receiving channels. No calculations for storm sewer system found in file. Sediment traps and sediment basin discussed in narrative but not shown on plan. No permanent controls from post construction runoff.
  • Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO's found:
    • Sec. 1: Are practices shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
    • Sec. 11: Are channel lining and/or outlet protection required on stormwater conveyance channels?
    • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
    • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
    • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
    • Comment: No outlet protection design calculation in narrative. Offsite receiving channel at northwest corner has not been analyzed for adequacy.
  • Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 108 Wind mill Hills Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
  • AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision:
    • Perfect score!
It's nice to find that some of the areas inspected had such great scores. As a citizen, knowing and believing that the Town should be an example, I am embarassed at the results found at the Aquatic Center. This is suppose to be a bright and shining star in our Town. We should start by taking good care of it RIGHT NOW!!! Of course some of the issues with Erosion & Sediment Control might just be why some of the delays occurred. Considering some of the stuff I've seen on my daily drivebys there, I would just about be willing to bet that has contributed to some of the delays. You can't get close because it is posted, but a great deal can be seen from the road. A great deal more can be seen from the road with a pair of binoculars or a camera with a really good zoom lens:)