Joint Zoning Ordinance Committee and Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting – Floodplain Regulation Revisions – May 8, 2025

Note: The agenda and transcript indicate this meeting took place on May 1, 2025, but the user specified the meeting date as May 8, 2025. This summary reflects the content of the May 1 meeting.

The meeting was a joint session of the Zoning Ordinance Committee (ZOC) and the Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee (PRC) to discuss proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) and Facilities Standards Manual (FSM) related to floodplain regulations. Staff from the Department of Building and Development, including Natural Resources Division Manager Gwen Kennedy and Floodplain Administrator Maggie Auer, presented an overview of the draft changes. The goal is to maintain compliance with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, improve clarity, and align with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. No members of the public signed up to speak, but committee members asked detailed questions and raised concerns.

Discussion Items

Zoning Ordinance Amendments

• Floodplain Map Updates: The proposed change allows staff to update floodplain maps as studies are approved, without a separate zoning map amendment (ZMAP) public process. In place of that, a property owner notification requirement will be added to Chapter 8 of the FSM.
• Permitted Uses Table (Section 503E): Changes include removing “active recreation” as a permitted use in the major floodplain to align with the Comprehensive Plan, removing swimming pools as a permitted use in the minor floodplain, and adding “adaptive reuse” in both major and minor floodplains. The use table was reorganized with ‘Y’ indicators for clarity.
• Development Procedures (Section 503P): Renamed to “floating development” for clarity. The requirement for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and timeline were moved from the FSM to the ZO to align with state code.
• Development Standards (Section 503H): A zoning permit will now be required for any development in both major and minor floodplains, not just major. This aims to better track development (e.g., fences, tree planting) in the regulated floodplain.
• Purpose Clause (Section 605): The purpose language was changed from “conserve the natural state of water courses” to “improve public health, safety, convenience, and welfare.” Staff explained that FEMA’s primary focus is life and property protection, not environmental protection. Some members expressed concern that the new language is too vague.

Facilities Standards Manual (FSM) Amendments

• Floodplain Study Type One (Section 5411): Clarified when a type one study is applicable to make it easier for applicants to determine appropriateness.
• No Rise/No Impact Certification: Replaces the old “Declaration of No Impact Statement.” This certification applies to a broader range of projects, but staff noted it will require case-by-case evaluation.
• Floodplain Alteration Type One (Section 5442): Expanded to include additional scenarios (e.g., revisions to approved models, such as updating rainfall data), reducing the need for full type two alterations.
• Plan Requirements (Section 8104/8105): Added requirements for a narrative describing the project, spatially referenced digital model files, property owner notifications when floodplain boundaries change, and final mapping files to expedite map updates.

Key Concerns Raised by Committee Members

• Active Recreation: Several members questioned removing active recreation as a permitted use in major floodplain. Concerns included the broad definition of “active recreation,” impacts on existing parks and golf courses, and the inability to expand non-conforming uses. Staff clarified the removal was driven by the Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission is re-evaluating that plan. Members requested analysis of how many parks and HOAs would be affected.
• Minor Utilities vs. Underground Utility Lines: Discussion focused on whether underground utility lines (e.g., water service laterals) would now require a special exception under the “minor utility” definition. Staff confirmed underground lines are not minor utilities and would not trigger a special exception, but above-ground features like pump stations would. Members requested clearer distinction.
• Notification Requirements: A member asked why the property owner notification requirement (for floodplain map changes) is only in the FSM and not also in the ZO, since users often look at the ZO first. Staff said it could be added to the ZO.
• Grandfathering: Industry representatives expressed concern about the lack of a grandfathering provision for projects already in development when the new regulations take effect. The county attorney noted the changes are largely a transition from an overlay district to performance standards, so permissions are mostly unchanged, but members urged early planning for implementation.
• No-Rise/No-Impact Certification: Members sought clarity on which specific projects would qualify (e.g., filling an ineffective ditch). Staff explained it depends on technical demonstration and is not a fixed list.
• Separation Distance: The old practice of avoiding a floodplain study if a project had sufficient horizontal (5 vertical feet or 3 horizontal feet) separation is now codified, but members wondered if this applies to limits of disturbance or structure location.
• Overlay District to Performance Standards: A member asked whether changing from an overlay district to performance standards would alter the interpretation that the floodplain zone extends infinitely upward (e.g., for a pedestrian bridge over the floodplain). Staff agreed this needs further discussion.
• Stormwater Management: Members questioned the performance criteria numbers (e.g., 600 sq ft accessory structures, two-thirds of drainage area for stormwater). Staff said FEMA dictates 600 sq ft, but other numbers are county-driven and open to discussion.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken; this was an introductory discussion.
• Next Steps:
  • The ZOC will hold its first meeting on May 7, 2025 to review ZO amendments.
  • The PRC will meet May 15, 2025 to review FSM amendments.
  • Staff aims to complete committee review before the August recess, with three meetings each.
  • After committee input, a draft will go to state agencies (DCR for FEMA review) and county referrals in September, then return to committees in October for formal recommendation.
  • The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will consider the amendments later (late 2025/early 2026).
• Staff will compile a list of FEMA-required vs. county-initiated changes to help committees focus.
• Staff will coordinate with the Planning Commission on the active recreation issue during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
• Version control of draft documents will be managed as multiple iterations are produced.