|
|
|
Notification
for the Fourth Meeting of Growth,
Development and Economic Issues in the When: Thursday,
January 4th at 7 PM BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction The Saratoga Lake Watershed Advisory Committee is exploring the potential of developing a uniform set of standards for the protection of watershed resources that may impact the overall water quality of Saratoga Lake. This action is intended to eventually take the form of a recommendation to the thirteen communities that are wholly or in part in the watershed. It is considered to be an excellent time to address the need since eight of the thirteen are involved in updating their comprehensive plan or undergoing of revisions to their ordinances. There are several methods that communities incorporate measures to protect water quality and most are already working with some form of guidelines or standards usually for erosion and stormwater control. A few have stormwater ordinances that address runoff in a more comprehensive manner. However, due to urbanization, it is not enough to adequately protect the streams leading into Saratoga Lake or Saratoga Lake itself. Many representatives from planning boards and comprehensive planning committees are on the Watershed Advisory Committee and are supportive of the idea of establishing some kind of watershed overlay zone that would address stream protection. Such a zone could be expanded in individual communities to meet special resource needs. Overview of Existing Standards in Saratoga Lake Watershed Communities and Present Community Efforts to Update Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Saratoga Springs: The City updated its comprehensive plan in 1999 and is in the process of revising the zoning ordinance. Ballston: The Town of Ballston has few provisions for the protection of natural resources including streams. The last comprehensive planning effort was made in 1989. Ballston Spa: The Village Comprehensive Plan is dated 1994. Charlton: The Town's Comprehensive Plan is dated 1971. Charlton just completed revisions to the zoning ordinance, focusing mainly on definitions. Protective measures primarily rely on large lot zoning. Corinth: Comprehensive Plan presently being updated. There are subdivision regulations that require consideration of stormwater management. There is no zoning in Corinth. Galway: Galway has recently begun work on a new Comprehensive Plan. They have sent out a newsletter soliciting public input on community goals. The committee is particularly interested in natural resource protection and will be receptive to incorporating specific standards recommended by this committee. Greenfield: The Town has a comprehensive set of standards that address natural resource protection. It includes a Flood Management Wetland Resource Conservation Overlay District. Objectives for the district include protection for water quality, soil conservation, aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology; protection of residents from flooding and storm damage; and aesthetic considerations. The ordinance is fairly complicated which may affect how it is implemented. Greenfield's Environmental Commission is generally happy with current standards but recognizes that enforcement of the regulations is a recurring problem. There is a need to better educate residents as to the value of the regulations. Greenfield's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1991. Malta: New Comprehensive Plan has just been adopted and committee is beginning to look at revisions to the zoning regulations. Except for regulations generally addressing soil disturbance, there are few provisions for natural resource protection. However, the new plan recommends a greater level of protection for the Kayaderosseras and for open space planning. A watershed overlay would therefore be consistent with the goals of the community and there is indication that a model set of standards would have a good chance of being adopted at some point in the future. Milton: Milton has nearly completed a new Comprehensive Plan and will follow with appropriate zoning revisions. The plan calls for the creation of a "greenbelt" along Kayaderosseras Creek. This overlay regulates development within the overlay and requires the submission of an erosion control plan and a stormwater management plan. The community will likely look favorably upon the model standards for a watershed overlay. Providence: A new Comprehensive Plan has recently been adopted in the Town of Providence. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are to follow. Saratoga: The Town of Saratoga has standards for the control of stormwater and erosion under both the site plan review and subdivision regulations. There is no special consideration for stream or lake protection. A new Comprehensive Plan is nearing completion. Zoning revisions will follow this process. The Comprehensive Planning Committee will likely recommend a Natural Resource Protection Overlay that will encompass specific standards for water quality protection. Stillwater: Comprehensive Plan dated 1998. The Town addresses floodplains and storm drainage in the ordinance and also has a local wetland law. This law is not well enforced due to the problem of needing a specialist to determine what is a wetland. The Town has identified the need to develop performance standards for the lakefront area that includes provisions for bank stabilization and septic system update standards. Wilton: Wilton's most recent Comprehensive Plan is dated 1990. Present zoning addresses timber cutting, soil preservation, and erosion control on steep slopes through the Stream Resource Management Ordinance which is part of the Zoning Law. There appears to be a good system of checks and balances in place regarding enforcement. Mandatory site inspection fees provide for the Town to ensure that stormwater plans are properly followed. Considerations for Developing a Model Watershed Protection Overlay Purpose
and Need: The purpose of an overlay district or zone is to protect
natural resources without disturbing the expectations created by existing
zoning ordinances. Existing provisions may properly regulate the relevant
district, but more specific provisions may be needed to accomplish other
important land use objectives. An overlay district is created by local legislature by identifying a special resource or development area and adopting new standards that apply in that area in addition to the zoning ordinance. An overlay is superimposed over existing district lines. Provisions in the overlay typically impose a greater level of restrictions on the development of land but only where development as permitted under regular zoning may threaten the viability of the underlying resource. An overlay is typically adopted by a municipality to encourage appropriate development in a specific area or when zoning itself is not considered to be enough to protect a certain area. Suggested
Contents for a Watershed Buffer Overlay Zone Performance
Standards Buffer
Requirements The width of buffer zones can be highly variable and is influenced by the slope and quality of the vegetation in the buffer zones. Buffers with low slope are more effective than a steeply sloped buffer. A buffer that is composed of trees, shrubs and a minimal amount of grass is more effective than a purely grass buffer strip. To select an effective buffer width, the goals of the buffer must be identified. In this case, water quality protection is the goal rather than providing green space or wildlife corridors. In order to operate properly, a buffer zone needs to be above the normal floodplains and must receive water over a broad- crested front rather than a single point. The normal floodplain of a small stream is readily identifiable as the bank or section of land that has been regularly eroded from past seasonal flooding. This erosion may not be a bare open scar but will appear as a slumped grass slope or shrub slope. Lines of debris are also useful in identification of a stream seasonal high water during the spring. These indications of seasonal high water should be the stream side edge of the buffer zone. It is important to protect the flood plain area since vegetation buffers are less effective in the early spring when the plants are not actively growing. The table below shows the pollutant removal by vegetation buffers primarily based on grass filter strips. The table shows the distance at which 50% removal of the selected pollutant occurs. The table also shows that increasing distance does not dramatically improve the ability of the buffer to remove nutrients.
In order to obtain the benefits of a buffer, the stormwater must enter the buffer areas along a broad front. Stormwater cannot be discharged from a pipe. As a stormwater movement technique, sheet flow from limited impervious surfaces is the best means to load stormwater to a buffer zone. If stormwater comes by a pipe or even a roof gutter discharge it must be spread out over the widest possible area in order not to overload the system. Buffer zones work best around low-density development such as housing, farmsteads and small commercial facilities. Conceptually, a buffer zone needs to be at least 30-50 feet wide and outside the area of seasonal flooding. The vegetation should be a zone of grass to spread the stormwater, and shrubs and trees should surround the immediate stream corridor. Finally, any buffer zone, especially a small high quality, heavily planted zone of shrubs, is better than no buffer at all. Local governments should be encouraged to craft their programs to be responsive to the economic concerns of the development community. The purpose of the buffer is to put distance between development activities and the stream, not to discourage development from taking place. For more details see Schueler, Tom. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. The Center for Watershed Protection, 8737 Colesville Road, Suite 300, Silver Springs, Maryland 20910 and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government. Enforcement
|
home
| watershed plan | meetings
and announcements |
newsletter
citizen involvement | steering
committee | site map
