Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting – July 18, 2025

The Facility Standards Manual (FSM) Public Review Committee met on July 18, 2025, to approve minutes and the annual report, discuss the 10-year private reserve fund, and review proposed floodplain section updates. The committee also adjusted its meeting schedule.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes from June 12, 2025 – Approved unanimously (voice vote, all in favor).
• 2025 Annual Report – Approved with amendments (motion made, seconded, voice vote all in favor). Amendments included adding a tech memo on stormwater, rewording a section to "establish land engineering and other division standards," and separating DOM topics as suggested by Betsy.

Scheduling Changes

• August 2025 meetings – Cancelled.
• September 18 meeting – Rescheduled to September 11, 2025 (back-to-back with September 4). Committee members Kevin and Pete confirmed availability; additional confirmation from Laura needed.
• Remaining 2025 meetings – Scheduled through December, with intent to possibly reduce to one meeting per month in November/December depending on progress.
• October meeting room – Expected return to the Dulles room by the second October meeting (tentative, pending completion of renovations).

Discussion Items

10-Year Private Reserve Fund

• Staff Update (Seb) – Originally proposed moving the trigger for the 10‑year reserve fund to bond release and using developer reserve studies, but after review, staff determined that interpretation stretched the ordinance too far. The approach has pivoted to a "seed money" model where a calculation based on the construction bond estimate (e.g., a percentage of bond items) would be used to establish a fund at the time of recordation. Staff acknowledged urgency to avoid zoning violations.
• Committee Discussion – Several members expressed concerns:
  • Angela – Provided example: a 105‑lot subdivision has $220,000 in maintenance costs over 10 years. She questioned asking developers to fund that amount up front when HOA dues and capital contributions typically cover reserves. She offered to share reserve study data.
  • Kevin – Suggested a simpler approach: for projects in an existing HOA, show that the HOA’s reserve fund is sufficient; for new HOAs, an escrow could be released once the HOA is funded. He also asked if staff would accept input from industry experts on appropriate percentages.
  • Derek – Recommended sending a formal letter to the Zoning Administrator stating that the current ordinance language is unworkable and requesting a fix through the Zoning Ordinance Quick Fix process. He noted the issue is a zoning ordinance problem, not solely an FSM problem.
  • Multiple committee members – Agreed that the original intent was to ensure long‑term road maintenance, not to require a large cash deposit at recordation. The committee consensus was to pursue two tracks: (1) draft a letter to the zoning administrator from the PRC asking for a revision, and (2) develop an interim calculation method for the seed money.
• Follow‑up – A small group (Derek, Angela, Kevin, and staff) will draft the letter and a proposed calculation method, aiming to circulate before the next meeting.

Floodplain Section Updates (5.400 series)

• Minor edits – Streamlined language in Section 5.400 (floodplain studies) and removed duplicate wording.
• No Rise / No Impact Certification – The committee debated the removal of items B, C, and D (storm drain outfalls, excavation activities, clearing) from the declaration of no impact. Staff (new floodplain administrator) interpreted "no impact" strictly, meaning no change to the floodplain boundary or BFE. Committee members argued that these activities historically were allowed under a narrative statement and had only nominal, non‑adverse effects. The committee requested that the language be revised to "no adverse impact" and that the list of permissible activities be reinstated. Staff agreed to take this back for review and return with revised language at the next meeting.
• Type One Floodplain Alteration Criteria – Discussion focused on what qualifies as a type one alteration (lower fee, reduced review). Examples included minor grading for trails, ineffective flow area fills, and minor revisions to previously approved alterations. Staff clarified that the intent is to allow projects that do not require hydraulic model updates. The committee agreed to add clarifying examples (e.g., "minor grading in ineffective flow areas") but noted that site‑specific judgment will still apply. A new subsection was added for minor revisions to approved alterations, subject to floodplain administrator approval.
• Type Two concerns – Some members raised that the new type one criteria could inadvertently allow complex projects (e.g., a bridge spanning the floodplain) to be treated as type one. Staff clarified that type one is for projects with no hydraulic model changes; complex structures would still require type two.

Key Outcomes

• Minutes and Annual Report – Approved unanimously.
• 10‑Year Reserve Fund – Committee will draft a letter to the Zoning Administrator requesting a revision to the ordinance and will develop an interim calculation method. The letter will be circulated before the next meeting.
• Floodplain Language – Staff will revise the “no rise/no impact” section to use “no adverse impact” and re‑include the list of permissible activities. Clarifying examples for type one alterations will be added. Additional discussion on storm drain outfalls and excavation will be addressed in the next round.
• Next Meeting – Scheduled for September 11, 2025 (rescheduled from September 18).