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
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
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!
Swimming Pools
I don't know about the science or physics of this issue, but I do know that if Eddie Bourdon and an employee of Polynesian Pools are joining forces to oppose it, it might be an idea worth considering.
Ok, last attempt.
The buffer is to absorb run off from THE HOUSE.
If you improve/build within the buffer, it limits the surface amount of soil to accept the run off from THE HOUSE.
We know a pool is not permeable. Neither is most flat work(concrete and such) that surrounds it. So if this area is improved by adding a pool and flatwork, water cannot filter into the soil and increases run off into the bay.
It's not about the pool. It's about where the pool is being placed. It's not about the run off from the pool as much as it's about the run off from the house.
How?
How does the water in the pool flow to the bay????
It doesn't. It does not flow from the pool to the bay. It stays in the pool. Rain falls from the sky and lands in the pool. It stays there. Some is lost to evaporation, some is pumped out for cleaning or at the end of the season. That water is sent to the sanitary sewer system and is treated by HRSD. It DOES NOT flow from the pool to the bay. It doesn't. If someone drains the pool by shoving a hose in the storm drain, that is still not water flowing into the bay. It is someone bypassing the system and putting water in the bay. If that is the problem, then ban that.
"Whether the water is
"Whether the water is absorbed by the land has nothing to do with it. The issue is the water that flows to the bay."
They are one and the same. If the water is not absorbed by the soil, then it flows into the bay. So no improved surface does not allow water to pass cannot be counted as a buffer. This makes the city wrong by the simple definition they MUST follow as provided by the state.
You cannot support the city on these boards! Please see the posting guidlines.
Skirt this issue
The issue still remains how to treat the water surface area. The scientifically correct calculation is to do the computations based on the exclusion of the wetlands and water. These areas should be removed completely from the CBPA calculations. The area of the lot covered by the bay is not figured in the calculations. Whether the water is absorbed by the land has nothing to do with it. The issue is the water that flows to the bay. The water does not flow out of the pool and into the bay. The beach for once is right, because the people who made that decision listened to engineers. Whereas, the state is too influenced by the "eco-warrior" lobby groups. You can't argue against facts by referencing a response from Skoops - no offense skoops.
Painful
I hope you understand that it was very painful for me to type that.
Cjack
In the end, if it does not absorb and filter water, it's not a buffer for storm water. Besides, I am right because Skoops said so. Either way, you yourself just advocated measures to reduce run off. All the article said is that it most likely this issue will be dealt with by adding more precautionary measures, so what's the problem?
Cjack, do not forget you just defended the City of VB as being right and installed them as an authority to look to for guidance. This will haunt you on these boards. LOL
It IS the issue
Read the article again. The issue is the Beach looks at the water surface area as an area that does not contrinute to the runoff to the bay, which is correct. Other municipalities look at the pool water surface are as impervious area as if it were concrete. In order to get a variance to the buffer CBPA calculations are done to determined the existing pollutant load per year. If there is buffer encroachment, an equivalency factor is used to increase the required pollutant load removal requirement. The runoff is then treated by the use of under deck treatment, roofline interceptors, CBPA bioretention basins, mulch planting beds,etc. for single family homes. Largeer projects use BMP's or stormwater ponds.
Ira is right...
I hate to say.
Cjack, please follow
Cjack, it's not the run off "from" the pool that is the primary issue here. It is the fact that the run off from the home and it's paved surfaces create run off. A buffer system was devised to filter this run off. If you place another paved or improved surface within this buffer zone it reduces it's effectiveness. Thus the sponge concept. Eyes on the board guys!
I know you guys understand the basic premise here. Your choosing not to accept the facts to advance your argument.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (LOL)
"once you start cleaning a
"once you start cleaning a pool(namely backwashing or vaccuuming to waste) where do you think that water goes?"
Well I figured that people would dump their waste legally
where it belongs. I suppose that might be too much to ask.
In the Sanitary Sewer system. Not the one with the "STORM" written on the cover.
Did you defecate in the stormwater drains too when you dumped the pool sludge there? Change your car oil over it too? might as well have.
Excuse me while i go throw a few hundred tires over in the woods over there....
Pools are cool
Pools are cool. In a few years, after the market falls quite a bit more, I'll be looking for a house with an inground. I want the previous owner to take the loss on it though... the whole idea of "I painted the wall, and the place is now worth $10K more" will pass, as the trend of home flipping TV shows. I want to do a complete computer automation system for chemical maintenance. Might even be able to fill it in a more friendly manner.
Sponge theory
The issue is run off from the surface of the pool. 42 is headed in the right direction. Put a small bowl on a large sponge. Now spray the whole thing with water. Some water goes to the sponge, some in the bowl, some runs off. The bowl is the pool. That water DOES NOT run to the bay - that is the issue. The water stay in the bowl (pool) = FACT.
The lawmakers have the flawed logic. The FACTS say the water stays in the bowl, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
On new pools, the drains should, and as a stipulation of buffer encroachment, drain to the sanitary sewer system, where they are treated prior to release back to the bay.
I worked for a pool company
I worked for a pool company for over 10 years and the people saying that the water in a pool never affects the Chesapeake Bay don't know what they're talking about. The water may be contained when it falls into the pool but once you start cleaning a pool(namely backwashing or vaccuuming to waste) where do you think that water goes? Ever seen people with blue hoses pumping water from their back yards into storm drains? That's from a pool. Where do those storm drains empty? The Bay and the Ocean. Lets give the waterways a break and have a few pieces of open land for filtration. This is one of the few environmentally friendly policies I've seen entertained in a while and I hope it passes. I'm sorry for the people who may not be able to do with their land as they wish, but when will we pull together and realize if we don't start somewhere, there will be nothing left.
Ridiculous
All this hoopla so that the water in the Bay doesn't recede too much in 100 years or so. Makes no sense. People's use and enjoyment of their own land is seriously curtailed so that, by the time technology will allow us to replenish the Bay with the touch of the button, it hasn't receded. But what will happen is that all these beach owners' kids will not be able to tell their grandkids about all the memories they had with their childhood pool. I have never understood the hype and hysteria of the environmental zealots.
You have something all right but it aint good
The sponge analogy doesnt work here for the better....
The better analogy would be a bowl. If you pour water in it ( rain ) and it stays there! Amazing!
That is until evaporated and thus this dirty water has become pure water vapor! leaving the dirt behind in the pool!
Not only cleaner water but PURE water! yay science.
The Motto....
The Motto of Virginia Beach is:
"If It's Green and Growing, Cut It Down.....!"
I've got it!
First, it doesn't matter what the pool is made out of. What is important is that the water is not absorbed by the ground. It is not permeable if the associated materials of pool building are placed there. Even an above ground pool has a foot print that creates run off.
Imagine your property were a sponge. Take the sponge and soak up as much water as it will hold. Squeeze the sponges contents into a container. Now, cut the center out of the sponge to mimic the pool. Repeat the process of soaking up as much water as possible. Squeeze it out and measure your results.
If you do this repeatedly you will notice the reults are predictable. Thus, it is scientific and not just your opinion.
Missing the point
The buffer zone was created to filter run off before it reaches the bay. By placing the pool and associated flat work you are reducing the buffer.
BTW, is all science now associated w/ Al Gore for neocons? LOL
You guys crack me up. Your days of screaming over the facts to push your agenda are limited.
ALGORE
I thought the Al Gore kind of Green was the money kind...