OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Loudoun County, Virginia/Commissions & Advisory Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

FSM PRC Meeting – June 24, 2025: Level Spreaders & Floodplain Amendments

Commissions & Advisory Boards — Tuesday, June 24, 2025
BodyLoudoun County, Virginia
SessionCommissions & Advisory Boards
DateTuesday, June 24, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:55:53

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:00

I'd like to call in order the June 12, 2025 Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee meeting.

0:07

No members are participating remotely and committee members disclose that they are members of one or more affected groups and their respective declarations of interest are kept on file in the minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee.

0:29

Don't have any public comment.

0:33

Um although we can't take a vote.

0:38

Anyone read the minutes from our last meeting in May?

0:43

Yes.

0:46

Um there any comments, suggestions?

0:50

Yes.

0:59

Under the very screen.

1:04

There.

1:05

No, sorry, they're down.

1:08

Well, the level square lengths number 40 feet and 15 CFS are rare because that was his example you brought up, but I don't believe he mentioned it being rare.

1:19

Um that was a staff comment.

1:23

I should have been staff.

1:25

I remember Jimmy saying that about that.

1:28

I don't remember what that number was.

1:33

That example that you should think 15 CFS.

1:37

I think that's a yeah, they definitely said the maximum on the length.

1:41

And not sure about what I said on that.

1:43

Oh but the higher number 30 is not, you know.

1:48

Well, is this saying that all of these comments were from a committee member or just saying that this is the thing that Brandon had shared as an example where he had a 15 CFS levels rudder that was 40 linear feet long per old calculations, you know, did the one in control.

2:06

And that could go to one 44 under that all control.

2:11

And what so the question is whether it was rare or not, or just an example.

2:15

The common secret, I know it was just not 40 would be more typical.

2:21

Over 40 would be rare.

2:22

They're usually really small.

2:24

I'll listen to the tape.

2:25

How about that?

2:26

I'll cover on the tape if Crack doesn't need it.

2:28

Yeah, I will do that.

2:30

The higher end of the lack of the comment was the max length was rare.

2:35

Oh.

2:36

Yeah, I mean 40 sync more.

2:38

Not unusual.

2:39

Not unusual.

2:40

Yeah.

2:40

Yeah.

2:41

Yeah, that was the common.

2:43

Yeah.

2:44

That wasn't rare.

2:45

If we could the 15, you know, that's kind of the height of what we see typically.

2:50

It says over 40.

2:51

We don't see.

2:52

Not 40.

2:56

The way it was phrased, I misunderstood that.

2:58

It's not saying 40 foot level spreaders are rare.

3:01

It's if it's over 40.

3:04

We see a lot of smaller ones.

3:09

Well, you could just check the page.

3:12

And then if you could scroll up to the page two, the very top page two.

3:17

Top two.

3:19

Um that second bullet point floodplain studies are required to be sent to FEMA or major floodplain.

3:26

I just thought it was weird.

3:28

So however, county approval is what is required.

3:30

You don't need FEMA approval.

3:32

Sorry.

3:34

There was some confusion about does FEMA have to approve your flood plan or your CPAP can be approved.

3:41

I remember that you have to send it, but you don't have to have it approved.

3:47

Required to be sent to FEMA.

3:51

County approval.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Floodplain Management███████████████████████23%
Zoning Ordinance████████████████████20%
Stormwater Management███████████████████19%
Zoning Regulations███████████████████19%
Level Spreaders███████7%
Procedural█████5%
Wetland Management███3%
Technical Memorandum███3%
Annual Report█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting – June 24, 2025

The Facility Standards Manual (FSM) Public Review Committee (PRC) met on June 24, 2025, to discuss updates to FSM Chapter 5 level spreader standards, floodplain amendment language, and administrative items. The committee approved minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting as amended and the draft annual report by acclimation. No public comments were received.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes Approval: The minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting were approved as amended after minor corrections (e.g., clarifying that “over 40 feet” level spreader length is rare, not 40 feet itself). Motion carried unanimously.
  • Annual Report Approval: The 2024–2025 annual report was approved by acclimation. It will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at the July 16, 2025 e-Book meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public offered comment.

Discussion Items

Level Spreaders (FSM Chapter 5)

  • Staff reported discussions with DEQ regarding the maximum discharge rate for 200-foot level spreaders. DEQ agreed to revise their manual from 30 CFS to 20.87 CFS but cannot publish the change before July 1, 2025. The county may adopt the 20.87 CFS standard now and submit a follow-up report to DEQ. General Services supported the change provided that all level spreaders include a concrete lip. The committee agreed to adopt the 20.87 CFS threshold and revisit the standard after one year of implementation.
  • A scenario was discussed where a pond outfall discharges to a wetland channel. Using a level spreader to avoid wetland disturbance may require exceeding DEQ’s criteria. The committee concluded that such site-specific situations should be handled through the variation process rather than codified in the FSM.
  • Additional technical concerns were raised about velocity calculations and Manning’s n values used in the DEQ handbook. The committee agreed to defer a full discussion on allowable velocities to a future meeting.

Floodplain Amendments

  • The committee debated whether to keep floodplain study exemption language in the FSM or move it to the Zoning Ordinance. A key point was whether a floodplain study should be required for boundary line adjustments (BLAs) when the number of lots remains the same and no dedications or easements are proposed. After extended discussion, the committee agreed to keep BLAs in subsection B (administrator may require) rather than A (study not required).
  • Discussion also covered zone A floodplains and the 50-lot/5-acre threshold. The committee added language stating that the floodplain administrator may determine a study is not required for subdivisions with FEMA zone A affecting 50 lots or 5 acres under specific conditions (e.g., conservation lot with no buildable area in floodplain).
  • The committee reviewed type one floodplain study definitions. For major floodplains, a type one study is limited to re-delineation only (no new hydrology or hydraulics). For minor floodplains, updated hydrology is allowed but no new hydraulic analysis. Staff will draft clearer text with bullet points for the next meeting.

Tech Memo Supersession

  • The committee decided that the May 28, 2025 technical memo on interim standards should be rescinded and replaced with a new tech memo that incorporates the level spreader changes. The new memo will note that it supersedes the May 28 memo. The revised document is expected to be distributed shortly before the July 1 effective date.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved minutes and annual report unanimously.
  • Adopted 20.87 CFS as the maximum discharge for 200-foot level spreaders, with a concrete lip requirement. One-year trial period agreed.
  • Site-specific level spreader issues related to wetland impacts will be addressed through the variation process.
  • Floodplain study exemption language for BLAs will be retained under subsection B (administrator may require) with condition that number of lots remains the same.
  • Added language allowing floodplain administrator discretion for zone A subdivisions exceeding 50 lots/5 acres under certain conditions.
  • Type one floodplain study definitions refined: major floodplain – redelineation only; minor floodplain – updated hydrology allowed but no new hydraulic analysis. Staff to prepare revised text.
  • The May 28 tech memo will be rescinded and replaced with a unified tech memo covering level spreader changes and other interim standards.
  • Next meeting scheduled for July 17, 2025 (Sycolin Road).

Meeting Transcript

I'd like to call in order the June 12, 2025 Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee meeting. No members are participating remotely and committee members disclose that they are members of one or more affected groups and their respective declarations of interest are kept on file in the minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee. Don't have any public comment. Um although we can't take a vote. Anyone read the minutes from our last meeting in May? Yes. Um there any comments, suggestions? Yes. Under the very screen. There. No, sorry, they're down. Well, the level square lengths number 40 feet and 15 CFS are rare because that was his example you brought up, but I don't believe he mentioned it being rare. Um that was a staff comment. I should have been staff. I remember Jimmy saying that about that. I don't remember what that number was. That example that you should think 15 CFS. I think that's a yeah, they definitely said the maximum on the length. And not sure about what I said on that. Oh but the higher number 30 is not, you know. Well, is this saying that all of these comments were from a committee member or just saying that this is the thing that Brandon had shared as an example where he had a 15 CFS levels rudder that was 40 linear feet long per old calculations, you know, did the one in control. And that could go to one 44 under that all control. And what so the question is whether it was rare or not, or just an example. The common secret, I know it was just not 40 would be more typical. Over 40 would be rare. They're usually really small. I'll listen to the tape. How about that? I'll cover on the tape if Crack doesn't need it. Yeah, I will do that. The higher end of the lack of the comment was the max length was rare. Oh. Yeah, I mean 40 sync more. Not unusual. Not unusual. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that was the common. Yeah. That wasn't rare. If we could the 15, you know, that's kind of the height of what we see typically. It says over 40. We don't see. Not 40. The way it was phrased, I misunderstood that. It's not saying 40 foot level spreaders are rare. It's if it's over 40. We see a lot of smaller ones. Well, you could just check the page. And then if you could scroll up to the page two, the very top page two.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com