Bay regulations could make it tougher to get pools in Beach

Posted to: Environment News Virginia Beach

VIRGINIA BEACH

It could become more difficult to get permits to build swimming pools along Virginia Beach's waterfront.

State regulators have told the city to tighten its Chesapeake Bay Act guidelines on when pools are allowed.

Those who want a pool may need to make additional changes to their property, such as planting buffers or creating other types of runoff barriers. In some cases, where there isn't room for alternatives, pools may not be permitted, officials said.

Virginia Beach is the only city in South Hampton Roads that doesn't consider a pool equivalent to such hard surfaces as roofs, driveways, decks and roads when deciding how much of a property is paved and whether it qualifies for a variance to the Chesapeake Bay Act.

A pool built of concrete is no better for the Bay than a driveway, according to the environmental regulators. Pools prevent storm water from being filtered by the ground before it runs into the Bay, said Shawn Smith, a principal environmental planner for the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department.

City officials say there is a big difference. Water that falls into a pool, they say, stays there and never reaches the Bay. The department has given the city until June 30 to change its ordinance to list pools as impervious surfaces. If Virginia Beach doesn't comply, the case could be turned over to the attorney general's office for review.

Pool company officials and land-use attorneys call the change in pool status onerous.

City officials don't need bureaucrats from Richmond telling them how to apply the law, said Eddie Bourdon, a local attorney who has represented residents who live on the Bay or its tributaries.

"This isn't about bureaucrats running our life," he said. "It's about doing what's best for the Bay."

"I think it needs some discussion," said Jim Parker, a salesman with Polynesian Pools.

Thirty-seven of the cases, about 44 percent of those reviewed during a 10-month period in 2006 by Virginia Beach's Chesapeake Bay Board for exemptions to the act, involved pools, according to the state.

At its meeting last week, the Planning Commission recommended deferring the pool status change for further study. The City Council is scheduled to review the matter on June 24.

Virginia Beach's pool rules have generally been more lenient than other localities'.

The City Council in 1990 exempted pools from being considered impervious surfaces after being lobbied by developers and the pool industry.

The city didn't consider pools to be impervious because water doesn't run off from them and go into the lakes and rivers, said Bill Macali, a deputy city attorney.

That meant that Virginia Beach was treating its swimming pools as holding ponds for storm water, which they aren't, Smith said.

State officials weren't aware of the city's practice until recently.

In the past, staff with the local assistance board had simply reviewed what the city had on paper and didn't notice that pools weren't being considered in the process. It came to light during the last evaluation, when Smith looked over site plans, attended the city Chesapeake Bay Board meetings and reviewed how city officials were applying the ordinance.

"It was a state staff error," Smith said. "It should never have been approved with that caveat."

It doesn't mean that pools won't ever be built along the hundreds of miles of Virginia Beach shoreline protected by the act, Smith said, just that their effect be taken into consideration.

"They should be part of the storm water calculations," Smith said.

Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Almost

No one is disputing whether the house contributes to runoff. The whole argument is how to calculate the rainfall on the water surface of the pool. That has been my point all along. The house, driveway, pool apron, etc. will not be effected by the ruling. These items are accepted as impervious by everyone. The dispute deals with the pool surface area and only the ppol surface area. Read the article again.

Yawn

"So instead of there being a 800 square foot area of soil with a low runoff factor, you now have a 800 aquare foot area that contributes no runoff."

So what about the run off from the house that now has less soil to absorb it? That is the issue. Unless your calculations show a decrease in run off from the home that equals the surface area of the pool your calculations are off. It doesn't matter if the pool CONTRIBUTES runoff it matters that the BUFFER has to be INCREASED to accomodate the area lost.

Ta da!

I keep answering the question

The question is "should the water surface area of the pool be treated as impervious surface?"

The answer is no. Yes you have removed an area of soil, but you have also removed the rainfall that falls on that area. All rain is not absorbed by the ground. Some of it runs off. So instead of there being a 800 square foot area of soil with a low runoff factor, you now have a 800 aquare foot area that contributes no runoff. The surrounding pool apron, house, walkways, driveways, additions, etc. still factor in. Buffer equivalency calculations take into account the change from pervious (ie. grass) to impervious (ie. concrete). The result is something like a infiltration trench that allows for more water to infiltrate into the ground by storing it in the voids between the rocks.

Anyone?

"you would understand that the surface area of the pool does not contribute to the runoff."

Oh, we understand just fine.

Does anyone notice he will not answer the question. He just keeps refering back to the amount of runoff FROM the pool and will not address the amount of soil that is REDUCED to filter the water that runs off from THE HOUSE? Nor does the writer acknowledge that the article states that in most cases there will simply have to be other precautions made to accomodate the pool.

The house is not the issue

I can't be any more clear. The issue still remains how to account for the water that falls on the surface of the pool. Ask your wetland scientist friend how water that falls into the pool runs off into the bay. If you knew how the calculations were done, you would understand that the surface area of the pool does not contribute to the runoff. The surface of the pool, essentialy becomes a seperate drainage area that does not contribute to the Ches Bay watershed. By the way the pool surface area does not factor in to the total lot area A(site) in the CBPA calcs.

So

Your still wrong. I believe you know your wrong. I am sitting next to an ACOE wetlands scientist that says your wrong as well.

Your a fraud who is for some reason is trying to sway public opinion by misinterpreting facts under the disguise of being an expert. In addition, I feel there should be NO exceptions or variances from the Chesapeake Bay Act. None. Virginia Beach should be penalized for their dubious interpretation of the Act which helped expand their tax base at the expense of others.

I will stand by my comments and explanations as detailed below. Apparently the state and federal goverment disagree with you as well. Now get off of the computer and get out their sell/install some pools.

Pool surface area

Runoff from the pool water surface does not flow to the bay. For the purpose of the CBPA calculations, the pool surface area (water area ONLY) does not runoff, nor is it absorbed into the ground. For the purpose of the engineering calculations, the water surface area is not pervious nor impervious. Therefore, it should not be figured in the calculations. If you have time, get an engineering degree (at least 4 years) and become a licensed professional engineer (8 hour FE exam + 4 years experience + 8 hour PE exam) and then work the calcualtions, then you will understand. I did it, how hard can it be??

Ok

So you are saying that a pool is not impervious? Are you saying that by adding a container of water to the surface it does not reduce the surface area?

Pretty funny. You should showcase your intellect in public more often.

I'm done.

Details

The city didn't consider pools to be impervious because water doesn't run off from them and go into the lakes and rivers, said Bill Macali, a deputy city attorney.

They are talking strictly about the water surface area. All municipalites look at flat work as impervious, the Beach excludes the water surface area. That is the issue, and the only issue.

My pitch

If you vote for the Ira T/mikep/Bigdaddy ticket we will do away with the environment all together. No more worries about fish, trees and other distractions. Hows that for "change?"

In fact, I am going to use Iron Maiden's 'Kill 'em all' art work as the campaign poster. Yes, I have this on LP. Impressive, no?

Drink Brawndo! It's got electrolytes!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Environment rss feed    News rss feed   



Toolbox


special features