Facility Standards Manual PRC Meeting - September 12, 2025
Facility Standards Manual PRC Meeting - September 12, 2025
Note: The agenda and transcript indicate the meeting occurred on September 11, 2025, but the provided date is September 12, 2025. This summary uses the requested date.
The Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee (FSM PRC) met to approve prior meeting minutes, discuss floodplain amendments to FSM Chapter 8, and receive an update on the 10-year Private Road Reserve Fund. The meeting included detailed deliberation on application requirements and a recognition that the private road fund issue requires higher-level policy input.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of September 4, 2025 Minutes: The committee discussed a proposed edit to clarify a comment from Jason regarding special exception requirements and additional criteria (percent impervious). The committee decided not to include such technical clarifications in the minutes. The minutes were approved by motion.
Discussion Items
Floodplain Amendments (FSM Chapter 8)
- Draft Property Owner Notification (Section 8104): Debate centered on whether to require a draft property owner notification letter at the initial floodplain study submission. Some members argued it is unnecessary if the study does not change boundaries, while others noted that changes can occur due to better data. The committee agreed to retain the requirement but with a caveat that it applies only if the floodplain study results in a change to base flood elevation or boundaries.
- Documentation of Federal/State Permits (Section 8105 B2A): A comment from Phil (submitted via email) argued the language requiring "all necessary federal and state permits" is too broad and conflicts with the approval hierarchy (e.g., a stormwater permit cannot be obtained before floodplain alteration approval). Staff noted the language is from the zoning ordinance and CFR. The committee suggested adding "related to floodplain development" to narrow the scope and avoid conflict.
- Terminology Clarification: Significant discussion occurred on using "floodplain development" vs. "floodplain alteration" vs. "floodplain alteration application." The committee agreed to use "floodplain alteration application" to clearly refer to the paperwork, while "floodplain development" refers to physical work. The headers and text will be updated for consistency.
- LOMAR (Letter of Map Revision) Timing: The committee clarified that a LOMAR should be submitted post-construction, not prior to alteration approval. The section will be reorganized to separate application requirements (B) from post-construction LOMAR submission (C).
10-Year Private Road Reserve Fund Update
- Staff reported that the previous approach of using cost estimates and seed money failed to achieve consensus. Key unresolved issues include the definition of "establishment" of the reserve fund, timing (e.g., when the 10-year period starts), and whether the county can require actual funds upfront. Zoning administrator and county attorney involvement is needed.
- Committee Positions: Members expressed that the committee is not the stumbling block; the problem is deeper and requires policy decisions. Options discussed: seed money, bond increases, using reserve study to show a plan, or reverting to language from the 1993 revised ordinance. Staff will meet with DPZ and the county attorney and report back at the October meeting.
- Urgency: A member asked whether pending site plans are being held up. Staff is working to identify how many applications involve private roads and will assess urgency. The committee noted that delays could have financial consequences for developers.
Key Outcomes
- Floodplain Amendments: Edits were agreed upon regarding notification wording, permit documentation scope, and terminology. Staff will incorporate changes and consult county attorney if needed.
- Private Road Reserve Fund: No resolution reached. Staff will engage with DPZ and county attorney to determine a path forward. The committee will be updated at the next meeting.
- Next Meetings: Thursday, October 2, 2025 (Sycolin Road) and Thursday, October 16, 2025 (Dulles Room).
Meeting Transcript
Called order the September 11th, 2025 facility standards manual public review committee meeting. No members are participating for regulation. Any members disclose that they are members of one or more affected groups and their prospective declaration of interest are kept on filed minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee. Hopefully you all got an email from Laura with our agenda and the minutes from our last meeting, which was only a week ago. You said there were some suggestions for some edits to the clearance. Where um basically Jason talked about some of the confusion and said that a special exception is required for active liberation with a proposed rise or boundary change. But it was confident that there were also additional criteria that you must exceed. Or must meet, maybe is the way you say it. That meet um so I think the challenge is do we capture what people say, or do we add like what the standard actually says every time? And I don't normally do that, but if the group feels it's important here, we can add that in reds because that wasn't like an emphasis point made, but it's a true fact that there's additional criteria pertaining to the percent impervious. Like slipped in that, because that is the development criteria. Yeah, like the design correct. I don't know if it was like a point of competition. That's the thing. I didn't want I think Jason's point was that any time you have a rise or a boundary change, you need specs, but this is also true. So I I kind of need guidance about how you how you all want your minutes. I think if there's factual information that helps provide clearity, what's the problem with that? Do you note it as yeah, a fact change, and here's what was said, and the correction. I mean, I think the parents hoping that was sort of a note that it's like maybe could you just say like note or correction or something? Yeah. Well, we have a wire, I think note. Is there anything wrong with saying note? And that's described it. Yeah. Sorry, it's not let me think it quicker. I'm sorry. Your screen behind you is not working long. I know it is. It was the line. I asked for the women using this room, so they don't want to fix it right now. And yeah, and I still have the room. Um percent impervious development criteria. I don't know, we've not had this before, so I guess it's uncharted territory. I mean, would be I'm not sure what it really adds to the minutes. I wouldn't put it in there, but I heard the I'm not looking to the minutes for technical criteria, right? So we could wind up have all kinds of notes and clauses for appropriate references to the codes and standards and that's I don't have sure really. Check yourself up for more work for it. I'm just aiming to please. However you want it, that's how it shall be. Um I wasn't inclined to put it in just because we don't normally do that, but then I thought, well, I'd ask. So if we don't want this change, I can just reject it. And then we're just back to the regular minutes, unless there are other changes. I don't know how critical it is to note when we started the meeting, but we didn't start on that. I think it's funny. So I typically give myself like within five minutes. Okay, we're good. If you think we started with the before 305, I have no idea. I just need but if we're after 305, I usually say it. Same with like the ending of the meeting. Okay, it's joking.
openpublica.com