It’s clear from last night’s Monday’s Public Hearing on the RPA, and from the mail traffic I’ve been getting, that there’s been a lack of clarity on the RPA and especially on the RPA Screening Area (pictures of differences after the jump)
FACT: If you are in the RPA Screening Area and the PROJECT (deck, swingset, patio, vegetable garden) you want to complete is LESS THAN 2500 square feet in area, then you are cool.
You don’t have to ask permission beyond what the county (or your HOA) already requires or do water testing or anything.
FACT: This means that the only folks who have to worry about whether they are in the RPA Screening Area, are landowners with Huge Tracts of Land that are looking to subdivide or build homes or large shopping areas. In which case, the $3400 fee for doing the testing is a small percentage of the price and is a cost of doing business.
QUESTION: So, who has a vested interest in sending out panicky emails to homeowners in Broadlands, Brambleton, Sterling, and other well-built-out areas of the county where the average size of a project is 240 square feet? Couldn’t be builders and realtors? Could it?
FACT: The bulk of Eugene Delgaudio’s campaign money comes from realtors and builders
FACT: Donny Ferguson, who wrote that Western Traditions blog post, is a former Eugene Delgaudio aide. Here is a picture of a map overlaid with the RPA
And here is a picture of the same map overlaid with the RPA Screening Area
How do you find out if you are either area?
- GO HERE: http://gisinter1.loudoun.gov/weblogis/agree.htm.
- Click on Yes, and then click on the tab marked “Search”.
- Enter your address (it works best if you enter as little as possible – house number and first part of your street name).
- Click Submit. Then click Map It on the linked list the site gives you.
- Now click on the Map Layers tab in the new window.
- Click on the drop-down box under “Layer Groups” and select “Environmental”.
- Now select the select “Draft RPA Screening Tool” and scroll down to click apply. If there is no beige on your site, you’re not in that area.
- Now, unselect that option and select “Draft Chesapeake Bay Area” and scroll down to click “apply” to see if you are in the RPA.
If your site doesn’t have any green in it? You’re good.
If there is any brown on your site and you are doing a project that disturbs less than 2500 sq ft, this document says that you are okay.
If you are within the green area, then you’ll need permission to do your project.
A full, rational discussion is indeed what we should have.
Thanks for your explanation as well. Our goal here is to present facts (or what we understand to be the facts) with verification, instead of wild-eyed fear-mongering and misrepresentation, which the Sterling District Supervisor seems to prefer.
Yes, we are going to spin things oiur way at times, but that’s the nature of political talk. But we’re not going to out-and-out lie, I can assure you that.
Daverunner, re fact 3, the reason such a minimal percentage are known to be affected is because such a minimal percentage of the county is actually mapped.
That is why it is possible to use the draft Chesapeake Bay Map layer and see property that is completely unencumbered, and then use the draft RPA screening tool and see the same property heavily encumbered.
What that means is: the property is not mapped, and will therefore, having been flagged by the screening tool, require official mapping. That will be the first of potentially many costs.
Which may then change the parameters on adjoining property, because the one parcel IS now accurately mapped and added to the Chesapeake Bay map.
In addition, Flowchart 2 (the document that “proves”) is a very simplified version of proposed events that is somewhat contradictory with some of the draft language of the actual ordinance.
I’m not trying to throw a bomb here at you guys (and don’t worry, I don’t plan to be around often!), but regardless of the politics of all this, the ordinance and its potential affects are not as simple as it appears.
Concerns have been raised not just by development entities, but by rural landowners, and suburban HOAs.
The potential impacts in the rural policy area are extensive, and the potential costs to suburban HOAs are as well.
I think these are legitimate concerns, and suggest that a full discussion of the ordinance (with ALL stakeholders represented) is merited rather than a rush to pass an open-ended moving target.
That may not be what any of you are advocating, but I do recommend reading all of the documentation available rather than simply relying on the flowcharts.
There is much more here worthy of discussion before any passage in the current form.
Just my opinion, and thanks for the opportunity to post it here.
at the level to which Delgaudio will stoop with his lies. Of course, it is quite possible that it may indeed cost someone $3,700 to obtain a waiver to build a deck, but NOT EVERYONE. I don’t know how else we can say this – if your land disturbance is LESS THAN 2,500 square feet, AND you are not in an RPA, it’s business as usual.
FACT: RPA delineations will NOT be required where there are no streams or water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed project.
FACT: Decks and additions UP TO 2,500 square feet are also permitted in the RPA by administrative waiver.
FACT: 3 percent of existing structures and 2 percent of structures with a street address fall within the RPA.
(all of these facts can be found in this document)
Stop fear-mongering, Mr. Delgaudio, Mrs. Waters, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dean, DAAR, and all you others. The fact is, this proposed regulation will affect a minimal number of homeowners in Loudoun County.
Thanks for the clarification of what is going on with this proposed policy. It makes even more sense to implement it now.