Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting on Habitat Study Requirements – April 11, 2025
Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting on Habitat Study Requirements – April 11, 2025
Note: The meeting transcript states it took place on February 20, 2025, but the provided metadata indicates a date of April 11, 2025. This summary uses the metadata date but notes the discrepancy.
The committee met to discuss proposed amendments to Section 8 of the Facility Standards Manual (FSM) concerning habitat studies, species surveys, and the implementation of zoning ordinance requirements for natural heritage resources and wildlife habitat.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Avi Seren (President, TNT Environmental) provided technical comments on the proposed FSM amendments. He expressed concerns that the county lacks authority under the current zoning ordinance to require habitat studies or species-specific surveys, as the ordinance only pertains to activities within river/stream corridor resources and very steep/moderately steep slope areas. He noted that in practice, these requirements are being applied more broadly, sometimes arbitrarily. He argued that the zoning ordinance tables appear to prohibit any impact to wildlife habitat as verified by DWR, but that such verification is rarely obtained. He emphasized that DWR and DCR are the agencies responsible for regulating protected species, and that requiring habitat studies for projects without a federal or state regulatory nexus is unnecessary and costly. He stated that the state agencies have limited personnel and do not review non-regulatory projects. He also pointed out that DWR searches are radial (2–3 mile radius) and only indicate potential habitat, not confirmed presence. He recommended that the county coordinate with DWR for determinations rather than imposing independent requirements.
Discussion Items
- Review of Proposed FSM Amendments (Section 8.101A) : Staff presented revised language that breaks out natural heritage resource letters, wildlife habitat reports, and IPA (Information Planning and Assessment) reports, and clarifies that with preliminary plats only certain documents would be required. The revisions aim to provide more clarity than the current advisory opinion.
- Debate on Interim Standard vs. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: The committee discussed three options:
- Continue operating under the zoning administrator’s advisory opinion (current practice).
- Issue a technical memo (interim FSM language) to provide more detailed guidance.
- Pursue a joint Zoam/Doam (zoning ordinance amendment and associated FSM update) to address the underlying zoning ordinance issues, possibly pulling this topic out of the broader “quick fix” list.
- Staff noted that many of the concerns raised (e.g., applicability to moderately steep slopes, requirement for field assessments) stem from the zoning ordinance itself and cannot be fully resolved in the FSM alone.
- Several committee members expressed that the advisory opinion is functioning adequately for staff, but creates uncertainty for applicants. Others argued that the tech memo would be a more immediate improvement but risk becoming obsolete once the zoning ordinance is amended.
- Definition of “Field Assessment” and Project Area: The committee debated whether a field habitat assessment is always required and what constitutes “project area” (parcel vs. limits of disturbance vs. plan of development). Staff explained that for grading permits, a written narrative without a field assessment is acceptable, but for preliminary plats the current advisory opinion mandates a field assessment. The committee requested further clarification on tiered assessment levels.
- Legal Authority and Preemption: Jason (legal counsel) explained that the county’s zoning powers under Virginia Code §15.2-2283 provide ample authority to regulate natural resources, and there is no preemption by state or federal law for upland activities. The zoning administrator’s advisory opinion carries weight but is appealable through official determinations.
Key Outcomes
- Decision to Pause Tech Memo: The committee agreed not to proceed with finalizing the technical memo at this time, to avoid expending effort on interim language that may be superseded by a zoning amendment.
- Pursue Joint Zoam/Doam: The committee recommended that staff work with the zoning administrator to initiate a combined zoning ordinance amendment and FSM update, either as a standalone item or within the scheduled “quick fix” process, to resolve the fundamental issues (e.g., applicability to moderately steep slopes, definition of field assessment, project area scope).
- Continue Under Advisory Opinion: Until the zoning amendment is adopted, projects will be processed using the existing zoning administrator’s advisory opinion. Staff expressed that this is workable for their current reviews.
- Request for Zoning Quick Fix Inclusion: The committee will ask that the zoning ordinance quick fix list include clarification on moderately steep slopes and tiered assessment requirements, with input from technical experts.
- Future Meetings: The next committee meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2025 (note: transcript date discrepancy). Staff will provide an update on the feasibility of a standalone Zoam/Doam following coordination with zoning administration.
Meeting Transcript
The February 20th, 2025 Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee meeting. No members are participating remotely, and committee members just one of those they are members of one or more affected groups and their respectable declarations of interest are kept on file in the minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee. I got the unique experience of having pneumonia, which is uh not recommended, and uh hopefully I don't have to go through that again. Um understand there's um gonna have maybe reopen some of the conversation that you all had at our last meeting. Um I know we have at least one person would like to speak during our public comment period. Um just ask that everybody want to work with me because I I wasn't part of left the last meetings of conversation, and I've tried really hard over the last few days with Laura to catch up. Um, you know, obviously it's a lot of these uh proposed DCR DWR amendments that we're gonna talk about today. So um Avi, if you'd like to uh you start off our meetings with public comment, um, if you can kind of fit your comment into around a 10 minute window or so. I don't think there's a hard clot. I really hope so. Yeah. Um just say you are aware of the way we do this. I mean, you can say whatever you need to say. Don't anticipate there's gonna be a lot of back and forth committee. Um our goal would be to listen to absorb as much as we can. You're welcome to stay for the entire meeting if you like, but we typically don't typically don't engage with the public during the committee's conversation. Obviously, you are a technical technical expert, and if there's a committee member that would like to uh bring your thoughts in during our conversation, we'll allow them on a limited basis. But I gets a little awkward if we have too much you know public interaction during that discussion. So would you be comfortable moving up to the table? Sure. I I just I didn't want to take somebody's seat. That's okay. Like slime drop from the ceiling. Uh we're we're I'm not gonna venture too far, though. I'll just go here. Right in the middle of the slice. Yeah, exactly. I'm pulling it out for you because you're a lot more important than I. There's one right here. Now it's just awkward. You got nine minutes left. His billing rate, I'll take it. Um I've I've had the pleasure of working with most people in the room. Those who don't know, uh, my name is Avi Seren. Uh, I'm the president of TNT Environmental. We're uh wetland natural resource consulting firm based in Shantilly. Um, I'm state licensed wetland delineator, uh Virginia Surface Water Delineator Certified Ecologists got a lot of stuff. I wear a lot of hats in short. Um worked on around about a thousand projects in Loudon County, so I've traversed many, many tens of thousands of acres within uh these boundaries here. We do a lot of TD reviews um within the county border. We do a lot of species studies uh elsewhere in the state, uh, but I wanted to provide some specific comments regarding some of the proposed amendments to section eight of the FSM. Um which I'm gonna I hate reading from notes, but I don't want to miss something, so you'll have to bear with me for the lack of eye contact and a lot of reading. Um so I wanted to start off by saying that I you know in reading this and comparing it back with the zoning ordinance, specifically section 6.04. I'm really not sure where the county has the authority to ask for habitat studies or species specific surveys under the current zoning ordinance. Uh there's really no mention of it anywhere within there. And further, that the section pertains really only to, and I quote activities permitted within the river and stream corridor uh resources or risk or buffer area, very steep slopes and moderately steep slope areas. Uh, but what we're finding in practice is that some of these initiatives are being applied in many other areas and almost at Windsy at times, it feels like as well. Furthermore, if if you look at tables 5.04-5 and 6.04-1, if we're to take those as written, which uh I think we sometimes have to, but if we do that, then there are to be no impacts whatsoever to wildlife habitat and I quote as verified by DWR, which I'm not sure that's a thing that we we ever get from them. None of this takes into account any permissible plans of development which have gone through the section 404 or 401 process during which both DCR and DWR are given an opportunity to review and comment on a given project. Um specifically with each of these sections here, I'll hit on a couple of points.
openpublica.com