Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale commission discusses a town construction-phase stormwater permit, asks staff for more analysis
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a staff proposal to require a town-level construction-phase permit to manage polluted stormwater runoff and track-out during development. Commissioners agreed to continue work and directed staff to return with research on thresholds, planned-development rules, agricultural exemptions and scaling of requirements for homeowners vs. contractors.
A proposal for a town-level construction-phase stormwater permit drew extensive questions from the Springdale Planning Commission on March 18, as members weighed river protection against imposing burdens on small homeowners.
Staff introduced the idea as a streets-department proposal to require construction projects to file an additional town permit showing they will follow best-practice stormwater controls and to submit time-stamped photos during construction. Neil Connelly and Robert George, the town streets supervisor, told commissioners the permit would help the town document noncompliance and provide material to the state when enforcement by state regulators is needed.
Commissioners concentrated their questions on thresholds and scope. Several members asked whether the town should follow the state—loor of one acre or adopt a smaller local threshold (examples cited in the discussion included 5,000 square feet or other measures), and whether an activity such as backyard gardening, installing a fire pit, or short-term tilling should trigger permitting requirements. Robert George said municipalities can set local thresholds but noted many jurisdictions keep the one-acre threshold because of administrative feasibility and the way the federal/state stormwater program (NPDES) has been implemented.
The commission also pressed staff on technical details and exceptions: how to treat planned developments where a common development might be built out over time; whether normal agricultural activities should be excluded while construction associated with agricultural buildings would be captured; which work triggers concrete washout controls or requirements for covered trash receptacles; and whether some requirements (for example, porta-potties or gravel track-out pads) should be scaled or waived for homeowner projects where contractors do not operate off-site.
No ordinance or formal vote was taken. Instead, commissioners agreed to continue working on the item and directed staff to return with focused research and recommendations, including: possible local threshold options (acreage, square footage, or excavation volume), the state—asis for the one-acre threshold, the extent of planned-development coverage, potential agricultural exemptions, and how specific best-management practices could be scaled for homeowners versus contractors. Staff emphasized the proposed permits would not be a one-size-fits-all checklist but would allow case-by-case adaptation of best management practices.
The commission indicated that protecting the Virgin River and nearby riparian areas remains a priority but sought a measured approach that avoids overburdening routine, small-scale homeowner activities. The item will return to the commission after staff completes the requested research.
