Appalachian Power Company Smith Mountain Project No Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting Rocky Mount, Virginia January 13, 2010

Transcription

1 Appalachian Power Company Smith Mountain Project No Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting Rocky Mount, Virginia January 13, 2010 The meeting of the Steering Committee involved in the review of the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (SMP) was held on January 13, 2010 at 9:30AM at the Rocky Mount Service Center in Rocky Mount, Virginia. The following individuals were in attendance: Representatives or Alternates Susan Gelatok Sandy Shackelford Lois Spencer Tom Buck Ron Willard Dickie Dill Jason Turner Sherwood Zimmerman Stan Smith Larry Iceman Chuck Neudorfer Frank Rogers Chris Whitlow Russ Johnson Dan Wilson Todd Everett Greg Sides Bud LaRoche Liz Parcell Lisa Hammock Agency or Organization Association of Lake Area Communities (ALAC) Campbell County ALAC Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce (SMLRCC) SMLRCC Pittsylvania County Smith Mountain Marine Business Association (SMMBA) Leesville Lake Association (LLA) Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) SMLA Bedford County Bedford County Franklin County Franklin County Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) SMMBA Pittsylvania County VDGIF Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) Appalachian Participating via conference call were Brenda Winn of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and Lynn Crump of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR).

2 Liz Parcell welcomed the participants and all participants introduced themselves. Utilizing a power point presentation, Liz updated the group on proceedings since the initial October 5, 2009 Steering Committee meeting. In an effort to identify issues, concerns and positive attributes of the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (SMP), a meeting was held with the public on November 10, 2009 and individual meetings were held with the following stakeholders: Dock builders Landscaping Surveyors County staff members Realtors Marina operators Dredging contractors Shoreline Stabilization contractors Business organizations In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order issuing new license on December 15, 2009 (Order). According to that Order, several items relating to the SMP include 1) the review of the SMP must be filed by July 2010; 2) SMP related items identified in other management plans must be incorporated into the document; 3) consultation with various entities must transpire and they must be given 30 days to respond; and 4) Appalachian must provide a response on how their comments were addressed or not. Liz indicated that a clarification or extension will be requested of the Commission regarding the July 2010 date. The SMP 2010 Review Process was updated to reflect the consultation requirement. Several changes were noted and will be incorporated into the document. Russ Johnson asked to make changes with regards to the order of meetings. Specifically, Ron Willard asked to move up discussion on vegetation. Following a brief discussion including equal concern for other issues, a suggestion was made to discuss the order of topics to be discussed at the February meeting. Friday, February 26 was identified as a potential meeting date. Liz will identify several dates and forward them to the committee to determine availability. Comments with regards to the existing SMP are still forthcoming and as such, Liz will forward the collective list prior to the February meeting. The primary purpose of the current meeting is to review the collective list of administrative issues identified by the various individuals and organizations. Liz reviewed the dock application, construction and inspection processes. Russ Johnson indicated that he desires all county processes to be the same. Chuck Neudorfer questioned the possibility of Appalachian doing an inspection after the pilings have been installed, adding that Bedford County will inspect the footers in same or next day. Chuck Neudorfer expressed concern that Appalachian does not inspect the dock for one year. Liz explained that the cover letter to the permit states that Appalachian shall be contacted 2

3 upon completion of the structure so as to do an inspection. Upon notice, Appalachian will inspect within seven days and usually within one or two days. Jason Turner indicated that requiring an inspection after the pilings are installed will hold up dock builders. As such, Appalachian will do an inspection of the pilings, if requested. Liz Parcell reviewed the terms and conditions of the occupancy and use permit, noting that they are not building permits but a personal right to the property owner to occupy and use project lands and waters. All uses are by revocable permits. The mitigation and assignment processes were also described, as were the processes for erosion control and vegetation removal. Highlights of administrative issues identified by stakeholders include the following: Local Resolution Board Open Office Hours Faster Permitting Appeals Board With regards to a local resolution board, Liz indicated that discussions had begun in 2005 with the counties; a draft proposal and flowchart were prepared. At the last meeting on the local resolution board, Russ Johnson indicated that he would discuss the proposal with members of the Tri County Relicensing Committee as well as various lake organizations and get back with Appalachian. However, no response was ever provided. Appalachian remains open to the possibility of a local resolution board. Russ Johnson concurred with the assessment and stated that the problem was there was no teeth in resolution board decision; there was no way to side against Appalachian and have Appalachian honor it. An additional issue was who could come to the board and ask for help (adjacent neighbor only?) and the possibility of holding up construction of dock with simply a neighbor s complaint. Tom Buck indicated that the commercial interests would not be in favor of having a neighbor hold up the process; the existing process would be more favorable. Liz Parcell reviewed the current appeal process; if someone does not like what the shoreline management office indicates, an appeal can be made to the Hydro Manager. If that person is not satisfied with the response, he or she could appeal the decision to the Commission. The Hydro Manager could review both the opinion of the Shoreline Management staff and the Resolution Board prior to making a decision. Appalachian remains open to the idea of resolution board. However, Appalachian is still the licensee and has to meet the requirements of the license. The Resolution Board could not be in a position to override a license requirements. Tom Buck expressed concern that the Board could become political and suggested consideration of a technical advisory board instead of local resolution board. Russ Johnson added that it would never be a government run process, it would have to be a citizen board. 3

4 The need to educate the public with regards to the SMP was emphasized. Appalachian needs to provide training to dock builders, realtors, etc. In lieu of a technical advisory committee or a local resolution board, Stan Smith suggested an Administrative Law Judge, hired by the organization. Liz stated that we have a license and we cannot give authority away. We would not give up authority or responsibility given to us by the Commission. Ron Willard, II suggested a semi-annual or annual review to discuss issues that we are facing at the time. May need to improve language, etc. Chuck Neudorfer noted that the citizens want the resolution board, but the hardest part is getting an agreement as to who would be on the board and can they trust each other. Liz suggested that the counties continue to ponder the possibility; the review of the SMP did not require the establishment of a board. Russ Johnson indicated that there was a need to open up dialogue with Appalachian regarding local resolution board although if the Steering Committee can resolve a lot of the issues then a local resolution board may not be needed. It was also suggested that a different name be used. Discussion ensued with regards to establishing and communicating a time line for permitting process. Liz indicated that such communication is done on a individual basis but will be included on the website. Appalachian states that the timeline for complete single family dock applications is approximately 3 weeks. However, the actual time is generally shorter. The majority of applications are incomplete. The permits are signed by the Plant Manager in Roanoke and if he is on vacation then the permits are mailed to Columbus for another authorized signer. Sherwood Zimmerman expressed the need to have someone else locally that can sign permits if the Plant Manager is not available; it is not acceptable to only have one person who can sign. With regards to incomplete applications or inadequate drawings, Russ Johnson asked if Appalachian could provide a list of vendors to individuals. Can Appalachian provide a list of things most property owner do incorrectly? Other options would be to require surveys or require the drawings be prepared by a certified dock builder with such certification being the completion of an Appalachian instructed class. At a minimum, Appalachian will provide on its list of frequently asked questions, how to expedite the permitting process. Committee members suggested that Appalachian have a posted timeline but the timeline is only valid once the complete application is received and an adequate drawing is provided. State agencies have 30 days to comment if they need to be involved. The provision of office hours was discussed. According to Chuck Neudorfer it is a big issue. Liz stated that currently, there are no office hours; all meetings are by appointment only. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that the appointments are held for Appalachian s benefit, not the public s. Russ Johnson expressed concern that Appalachian is not willing to make any changes and suggested that at a minimum, a receptionist be hired or open the office on certain days. 4

5 Discussion on the final inspection of docks ensued. Appalachian will not issue a final inspection if there is a violation on the lot even if it not an issue with dock. Committee members expressed a concern with safety since the counties will not do their final inspections if Appalachian is holding its final for an issue other than dock e.g. a vegetation violation. It was questioned if Appalachian could issue a conditional final if the dock is in compliance with the permit issued so that the counties can issue their final inspections to ensure that the structure is safe. Liz will investigate the possibility. Appalachian will come up with a list of frequency asked questions. Committee members offered to help with the endeavor. Appalachian will post the questions on their website along with staff members and contact information. Liz Parcell reviewed the current shoreline management office structure. It was questioned if Appalachian has adequate staffing and whether Appalachian should have a surveyor on staff. Liz responded that staffing levels are adequate and that two staff members have surveying experience and surveying equipment is available and used. Liz Parcell discussed the current mitigation policy. The Steering Committee indicated that the policy should be changed so that if a dock was built according to SMP but not the permit issued then Appalachian should not make the property owner mitigate and if no permit is issued but they expand, then they have to mitigate. If the structure does not meet the SMP, the property owner should correct the structure and mitigate. Liz explained that if a revised design is submitted before the permit is recorded, a substitution can be made without having to make a new application. However, property owners, dock builders and surveyors are encouraged to work together to obtain a permit for a structure that can be built at the site in question and reflects the property owner s needs. Lynn Crump questioned if Appalachian could charge a fine, with the money used for vegetation in other public areas, lake maintenance or improvements to the lake. Russ Johnson stated that mitigation should be a monetary fine not vegetation or fish habitat. Liz noted that the idea had been explored in the past and she will follow up to see why the idea was not pursued. One Steering Committee member asked for an inspection of pilings. Another member indicated that such a requirement would slow construction and thus was not needed. Appalachian will inspect if an inspection is requested. Another issue identified by stakeholders is that there is too much paperwork. Liz responded that Appalachian does not ask for anything over and above what is needed and regulated. It was questioned if the counties could condense their paperwork. Russ Johnson indicated that it was his desire that all the counties utilize the same process. Russ Johnson also indicated that the current plan was approved in 2005 with portions of it being implemented in He asked for an explanation of grandfathering and questioned if property owners were being penalized for filing their Existing 5

6 Nonconforming Structure (ENCS) Documentation. Liz Parcell explained that during the development of the original SMP, the counties were concerned that if existing nonconforming structures were destroyed, then they should be able to be replaced. Appalachian included language in the SMP that if the structure is destroyed by natural disaster, fire, etc, then a structure utilizing the outside dimensions and location could be replaced (larger enclosures and walkways greater than that allowed under the SMP in effect at the time may not be replaced) provided documentation was provided to Appalachian. The SMP also states that nonconforming structures may be expanded but their nonconforming nature may not be increased. Appalachian does not use the term grandfather because all permits are issued by revocable license. If a dock is expanded without a permit then that dock is in violation. If they submitted ENCS documentation showing a certain dock and now a site visit shows a dock which has been expanded then they are in violation. An explanation of the permitting process prior to the implementation of the SMP was provided. With regards to Non-Commercial Boat Dock/Piers/Landings, if a county permit was issued then Appalachian would issue a permit based on the approved county permit, provided it was a dock. According to the terms and conditions of the permit, no modifications or expansions could be made without prior Appalachian approval. Steering Committee members requested that all of the docks constructed under these permits be waived from compliance with the permit issued. If Appalachian is unable to ignore noncompliance, Liz Parcell questioned what are the types of situations that we could take into consideration. Tom Buck noted that the dock builder and the property owner were doing what was acceptable practice at that time and there should not be mitigation for these docks. Mr. Zimmerman added that they should be treated as if they were not permitted. Liz Parcell questioned if a dock was constructed during this time period, didn t meet the permit issued, no county final inspection was ever issued and the dock impacted an adjacent property owner and that property owner complained, what should Appalachian do. How could Appalachian not enforce the permit issued? Discussion ensued with regards to areas of lack of compliance that Appalachian could take into consideration. Jason Turner noted that one area that the counties could have adjusted in the field was the size of floaters or even the installation of new floaters. Another suggestion was to look at the county ordinances in effect at the time the permits were issued and take into consideration whether or not a County final inspection was issued. Jason Turner noted that it was his opinion that 80% of the docks at that time did not get final inspections. Liz Parcell questioned the committee s opinion on another situation, What if a property owner got a Noncommercial Boat Dock/Pier/Landing just prior to the implementation of the SMP) and they added to permitted dock or modified it (e.g. a larger enclosure), knowing that new regulations were in effect. What should Appalachian s response be? One response given was that since Appalachian did not inspect at the time, they should let it go. 6

7 Permits for the maintenance of structures was discussed. Specifically, it was questioned what was the reason for permit for maintenance. Liz Parcell responded that maintenance is encouraged and according to the SMP, if maintenance to an ENCS exceeds more than 50 percent of the physical structure, excluding the pilings, then the structure must meet the SMP. However, in terms of maintenance, Appalachian counts both the upper and lower levels along with walkways in terms of square footage. It was questioned if the percentage could be increased to 75%. Or if someone only wants to replace the decking, could it be excluded? Another reason for the requirement is that different individuals have different opinions with regards to the definition of maintenance. If the county building department is going to require a permit, then Appalachian is going to require a permit is well. Discussion ensued with regards to the existing policies concerning existing nonconforming structures. Liz explained that Appalachian will take a closer look at this entire section at a later date. It was questioned if a sunset clause could be applied to some of the older structures. Also identified as an issue was maintenance to docks or lack thereof and the development of standards and policies on when to classify structures that are no longer safe or usable. Tom Buck suggested the possibility of two sets of guidelines; one for conforming docks and one for non conforming docks. It was questioned whether or not the counties require a permit to replace pilings. The county representatives indicated that they would research and respond. Tom suggested that maintenance should be based on cost of dock. If you are only doing maintenance that will cost ½ of dock value then, a permit should not be required or if the property owner wanted to replace all decking, roof shingles, pilings or decking, a permit should not be required. Liz Parcell emphasized that Appalachian does not wish to revoke permits; it will work diligently with the property owner to resolve whatever the issue is at hand but Appalachian would not say that permits will not be revoked. Committee members indicated that the permits should be tied to the property and not the property owner. Liz explained that the flowage rights state otherwise and that occupancy and use permits are personal right to occupy and use project lands and waters. Regarding the assignment of permits, property owners should work with buyers and dock builders to get permit for property. If the dock is not in compliance with the permit issued then Appalachian will not assign the permit. Liz agreed to follow up to see if the money can be placed in escrow to fix the violation. Brenda Winn indicated that correspondence should happen in timely manner. State agencies have 30 days to respond. The Virginia Water Protection Program regulates state waters; she will investigate to see if a permit from VDEQ is needed. 7

8 A discussion on the project boundary by metes and bounds versus approximation ensued. It was noted that the project boundary is a vertical elevation and that all uses with these elevations (800 at Smith Mountain and 620 at Leesville) need permits. It was questioned if mitigation above 800 foot project boundary is required. Appalachian requires the vegetation to be placed in the project boundary to the greatest extent possible. However, if it is impossible to place it completely within the project boundary, then Appalachian asks that it be placed as close to the project boundary as possible in order to create a linear vegetated barrier. Jason asked that the 1/3 of the cove be discussed at the next meeting and that implementation begin immediately. Tom Buck stated that with the current policy, homeowners get only approximately 25% of cove for dock and the public gets 50%. If time allows they would like to discuss at next meeting with a power point presentation. Liz will invite Frank Simms to attend. Liz indicated that she would the committee regarding next meeting date. The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 PM. 8