Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 2210

Shoreline Management Plan

Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

June 18-19, 2003

Location, Date, Time, Attendees:

A meeting of the Steering Committee for the development of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project was held on Wednesday and Thursday, June 18 – 19, 2003 at American Electric Power’s Rocky Mount office building, in Rocky Mount, Virginia.  The meetings began each day at 9:00 a.m. (EST) and were attended by the individuals listed below:

Name                                                      Representing

Kirby Richardson                               Bedford County

Bill Rolfe                                        Bedford County

Gina Shaw                                        Bedford County

Brent Wills                                         Bedford County

Lindsey Blankenship*            *                      Bedford County

Charles Poindexter                              Franklin County

            Bonnie Johnson                                    Franklin County

            Rick Huff                                          Franklin County

            Phil Nester                                      Guest of Franklin County

Greg Sides                                        Pittsylvania County

Jeff Graff                                        SML Chamber / Partnership

Mike Turner                                      SML Chamber / Partnership

Ron Willard II                                              SML Chamber / Partnership

Dave Banta                                       Smith Mountain Lake Association

Stan Smith                                        Smith Mountain Lake Association

Steve Campbell                                  Assoc. of Lake Area Communities

Bob Munson                                                VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

Bud LaRoche                                              VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries

Preston Smith*                          VA Dept. of Health

Gregory Theyel                                   Louis Berger Group

Bill Perry                                        Louis Berger Group

Todd Burns                                       AEP

Frank Simms                                      AEP    

Liz Parcell                                      AEP

Teresa Rogers                                     AEP

* Wednesday only

** Thursday only

A:  Notes for June 18, 2003

Introduction

Mr. Simms began the meeting with a summary of the overall goal of the SMP.  American Electric Power (AEP) wants a plan that will guide future development of the shorelines, balance the comprehensive development of resources and that can ultimately be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  AEP presented a list of items to be discussed based on comments that had been received to date.  AEP also proposed changes they viewed were reasonable and balanced based on these comments.  The following is a summary of the items and AEP’s proposed changes to be discussed.

SMP Section	Comment	Source	AEP’s proposal
Glossary	Change definition of cove – use 150 ft.	Franklin County; Franklin Dock Builders	Continue using the definition currently used by Bedford Co.
Classification	Limit the number of docks for off-water lots (1 slip per 100’ of shoreline)	VDGIF	Let regulations on dock length, setbacks control numbers.
Classification	Classify all shoreline currently zoned Commercial or Planned Commercial Development as High-Density Commercial shoreline	Marina Owners	Agree in concept.  Need more details on locations.
Classification	Reconsider 500’ width as a parameter	Franklin County	Retain 500’.  There has been much previous discussion of the 500’ parameter.
Classification	Reconsider grandfathering commercial use upstream of 500’ constrictions	Franklin County	This is already done because existing commercial facilities are classified HD Commercial.
Classification	Allow marinas in coves	Franklin County	Current marinas in coves are allowed.  Small marinas could be allowed in low density areas.
Classification	Less restriction on public use lands	Franklin County	What is required of others should also be required by public use. Continue using the proposed regulations.
General Regs	Do not exclude boathouses	Franklin County	Continue excluding totally enclosed boathouses.
General Regs	Chemical toilets above 800’	Our Place Marina	All toilets are to be located outside 800’ contour.
General Regs	No structures allowed without proof of upland toilet	Our Place Marina	If more than 3 slips, Health Dept. Regulations currently apply.
HD Comm Regs	Should ADA standards be required?	Marina Owners	ADA standards should be considered. ADA rules and regulations themselves will specify any requirements.
HD Comm Regs	Revise commercial dock length	Marina Owners	Revise from 100’ to 120.
HD Comm Regs	Eliminate commercial dock size limit	Marina Owners	Revise from 5000 sq. ft to 6000 sq. ft.
HD Comm Regs	Suggests alternative dock sizes	SML Association	See above.
HD Comm Regs	Eliminate “fairway” distance for commercial marinas	Marina Owners	Change fairway from 60 ft. to 2 x the slip length based on the larger slip length on the structure.
HD Comm Regs	Distance between docks should be 1.5 times length of the slip	Franklin Dock Builders	See above.
HD Comm Regs	Setbacks should be no less than the minimum fairway distance or half the minimum fairway distance with written agreement from adjacent landowners	Marina Owners	Change fairway distance from 200 to 60 feet if beside another High Density use.  Keep 200’ if beside a Low Density use.
HD Comm Regs	Extended lot lines should not be used	Marina Owners	Keep the concept of extended property lines but also allow subdivision dock location drawings to be used.
HD Comm Regs	Setback should be 60 feet; may be reduced with written agreement from adjacent landowners	Bedford County	Change to 60’if beside another High Density use.  Keep 200’ if beside Low Density Use.
HD Comm Regs	Allow enclosures below 800 feet	Marina Owners	Allow 48 sq. feet enclosure.
HD Comm Regs	Allow screening and larger structures below 800 feet	Franklin County	Do not allow larger enclosures or screening for HD Commercial.
HD Comm Regs	Revise height of dock to 35 feet	Franklin Dock Builders	Revise to 33 feet as previously shown on Marina owner’s drawing.
HD Comm Regs	Create set of regs for marina that only limit # of slips based on shoreline owned and proper setback and stay within 1/3 of the cove width	SML Association	Agree that regulations limit the number of slips.
Multi-Use Residential	Restrict the # of slips for off-water facilities based on shoreline owned	VDGIF	Regulations limit the number of slips.
Multi-Use Residential	Revise side setbacks to 60 feet; reduced with written consent of adjacent landowners for dock and courtesy dock options	Bedford County	Revise to allow 60’ if beside another HD Residential Use.  Keep 100’ if beside a low density use.
Multi-Use Residential	Distance between docks should be 1.5 times length of the slip	Franklin Dock Builders	Revise distance between docks from 60’ to 2 x the slip length based on largest slip on dock.
Multi-Use Residential	Allow screening or large enclosures for dock and courtesy dock options	Franklin County	Disagree. Do not allow screening or large enclosures for Multi-Use docks.  Allow for courtesy docks.
Multi-Use Residential	Delete requiring slips to be constructed in conjunction with residential units	Franklin County	Keep requiring construction of HD Multi-use docks in conjunction with residential units.
Public Use	Revise side setbacks to 30 feet; reduced with written consent of adjacent landowners	Bedford County	Already 30 feet.
Public Use	Allow screening or large enclosures	Franklin County	Do not allow screening or large enclosures on public use docks.
Public Use	Allow covered fishing piers for public use	VDGIF	Revise to allow covered fishing piers.
Low Density Single Family	Allow ramps for large landowners	Franklin County	Do not allow ramps in low density due to not being able to control number of people accessing the ramp.
Low Density Single Family	Change dock length from 80 feet to 120 feet or 1/3 cove	Dock Builders; Franklin Dock Builders	Keep dock length at 80 feet and 1/3.  If dock needs to be longer to reach adequate water, a variance can be requested.
Low Density Single Family	Does dock owner acknowledgement about water levels give AEP too much power over water levels?	Dock Builders	AEP’s license requirements already control water levels.  Acknowledgement is to make sure people are aware that the lake levels fluctuate.
Low Density Single Family	Change dock size to correspond to shoreline owned; storage areas 5% of total dock sq. footage; do not include walkway in dock measurement	Dock Builders	Allow for 100 sq. feet of screened enclosure and 48 sq. feet of total enclosed area to be located within 10’ of the back of the dock, excluding walkway.   Exclude walkway in sq. footage calculation.
Low Density Single Family	Change dock size to be based on shoreline owned; do not include walkway in dock measurement	Franklin Dock Builders	Exclude walkway. Change proposed dock size to the following: 100-300’ of shoreline – 1500 sq. dock with 2 slips, 301-600’ of shoreline – 2200 sq. ft, 3 slips and greater than 600’ of shoreline – 4 slips total in either two 1500 sq. ft structures or one 3000 sq. foot structure.
Low Density Single Family	No minimum water frontage required to have a dock	Bedford; Dock Builders	Keep a minimum of 100’ for future subdivided lots.  (Existing subdivided lots do not have to meet this requirement.)
Low Density Single Family	Review limit to 3 slips and 500 feet between multiple structure for owners of long lengths of shoreline – concern about fairness and excessive subdividing	Franklin County, Dock Builders, Dock Builders 2	See Above.
Low Density Single Family	Change setback to 10 feet instead of 15 feet	Franklin Dock Builders	Keep 15 feet setback.
Low Density Single Family	Add language about ordinances of localities and signing off by adjacent landowners	Dock Builders	The plan will allow for neighbors to work out the ability to build over side lot lines and within setbacks.
Low Density Single Family	Setbacks changed with signature of adjacent landowners	Bedford County	See above.
Low Density Single Family	Allow screening and large enclosures	Franklin County; Dock Builders	100 sq. ft of screened in area and 48 sq. feet of totally enclosed area.
Low Density Single Family	Enclosures should be 10% of dock size with 96 feet squared as minimum imposed	Franklin Dock Builders	See above.
Low Density Single Family	Disallow enclosures or limit to 48 feet squared with many restrictions	Our Place Marina	See above.
Low Density Single Family	19’ height alright, but does not include cupola	Franklin Dock Builders	Agree.  Allow for a 36” cupola.
Low Density Single Family	Platted properties with <100 feet of shoreline can have 1500 feet squared dock and 75 feet squared storage	Dock Builders	Platted properties with <100 ft of shoreline can have a 1500 sq. ft dock if it can meet the setbacks, extended property lines or obtain a variance to those requirements.
Low Density Single Family	Grandfather all existing properties under current county ordinances but sq. footage requirements will apply	Dock Builders	See above.
Low Density Single Family	Cupola can not exceed 36” excluding weather vanes	Dock Builders	Agree.  See above.
Low Density Multi-Use	Change length of docks to 120 feet or a maximum of 1/3 of cove	Dock Builders	100 feet and 1/3 cove.  If dock needs to extend further to reach water depth, a variance can be requested.
Low Density Multi-Use	Increase maximum dock size from 2500 ft. sq. to 6000 ft. sq.	Dock Builders	Change to 650 sq. feet / slip with a maximum of 2500 sq. feet for each individual dock.  Allow for structures to be combined for a larger dock as long as the total number of slips does not increase.
Low Density Multi-Use	Restrict slips for off-water units	VDGIF	Low Density allows 2 slips / 100’ of water.  It can serve on-water or off-water.
Low Density Multi-Use	Change setbacks from 45 to 30 feet; less with consent from adjacent landowners	Bedford County	Agree.
Low Density Multi-Use	Allow enclosures	Franklin County	Do not allow enclosures in low density multi-use.
Low Density Multi-Use	Delete that residential units must be constructed in conjunction with slips	Franklin County	Keep that multi-use slips must be constructed in conjunction with slips.
Low Density Multi-Use	Distance between docks should be 1.5 times length of slips	Franklin Dock Builders	Revise from 60 feet to 2 x the largest slip on dock.
Low Density Commercial	Maximum size of dock should be 6000 ft. sq. instead of 2500 ft. sq.	Dock Builders	Change to 650 sq. feet / slip with a maximum of 2500 sq. feet for each individual dock.  Allow for structures to be combined for a larger dock as long as the total number of slips does not increase.
Low Density Commercial	Setbacks of 30 ft. instead of 45 feet; less with written consent for adjacent landowner	Bedford County	Agree.
Low Density Commercial	Enclosures should be allowed	Franklin County	Allow for 48 sq. ft. enclosure.
Low Density Commercial	Change roof height from 26 feet to 35 feet	Franklin Dock Builders	Change to 33 feet if the HD Commercial setbacks can be met.  Keep at 26 feet if low density setbacks are used.
Low Density Commercial	Distance between docks should be 1.5 times the length of slip	Franklin Dock Builders	Change from 60 feet to 2 x the largest slip size on dock.
Shoreline Stabilization	Opposed to bulkheads – needs discussion; need vegetative mitigation as part of shoreline stabilization projects; submit reveg plan with stabilization plan	VDGIF	Bulkheads may be necessary.  A variance will be required. Further discussion is necessary on the vegetative cover.
Shoreline Stabilization	Bulkheads required for boat hoists and cranes; no permit for cutting grass, trimming shrubs, or raking leaves	Marina Owners	See above.
Shoreline Stabilization	Consider other materials for rip-rap than clean granite	Bedford County	Agree.  Include size, type and other details.
Shoreline Stabilization	County is plan approving agency; landowners should be able to reclaim land lost to erosion	Franklin County	County is one of the plan approving agencies.  Can not fill in the lake to reclaim lost land due to erosion.
Dredging Restrictions	All dredging needs to be permitted; do not allow stump removal; no dredging allowed 3/1 – 6/30	VDGIF	Allow maintenance dredging of less than 25 cubic yards in slips and fairway area without a permit.  All new dredging will require a permit or a notification.
Dredging Restrictions	ACOE does not allow shelves and prohibits removing original bottom	Bedford County	Agree.
Dredging Restrictions	No dredging regulations; who would issue stated fine	Franklin County	Plan will have dredging regulations.
Excavation and Filling	Require County Erosion and Sediment Control plans and land disturbing permits for any excavations or filling	Bedford County	Agree.
Vegetative Cover	Discussion and additions needed regarding mitigation plantings	VDGIF	Agree.
Vegetative Cover	Allow removal of vegetation	Bedford County	Vegetation cover regulations to be discussed.
Vegetative Cover	Encourage instead of require vegetative buffers	Franklin County	Vegetation cover regulations to be discussed. The intent is to protect water quality and habitat, not to keep people from stabilizing their shoreline or mowing their grass.   When the FERC looks at the plan, they are going to want to see how the environment is to be protected.
Other	Need to discuss the Commercial Dock Mitigation Fund	VDGIF	Our feeling is that mitigation is currently appropriate because there is no comprehensive development plan for the shoreline. However the shoreline management plan takes into consideration public access, safety and open shoreline therefore if a project meets the plan, no further mitigation would be required.  However, variance requests to the plan may need to include this mitigation.  Mitigation would be replacement in kind or other form, with the last choice being payment for access elsewhere.

Discussion ensued following Mr. Simms’ presentation.  Mr. Poindexter of Franklin County presented concerns regarding the plan.

• Principle concern of the Franklin County Board of Supervisor is having enough opportunity for public comment.  The County will have public meetings after the process in order to make a good determination on how to proceed.  There is a desire to cooperate but they want a good plan and to make sure it is objective. 
• A citizen group has been put together in Franklin County to review the plan and to comment.  They have overlaid county zoning on maps and want to go over the details.
• Each lake is a bit different.  Smith Mountain is unique because for 40 years the county has been in control.  The lake is very well respected. 
• There is reason to believe boating density shouldn’t be used as a parameter.  There is often a desire to cluster high dense uses near other high dense uses.   
• There has been difficulty in determining how parameters were applied and would like to discuss.
• If shoreline is classified as IMZ, people may not want to remove existing mobile homes for future development.
• Dock lengths setbacks, and number of slips are issues.
• How to classify jet ski lifts is an issue.  Does it count towards the total number of slips?
• Vegetation cover is an issue.  There is a concern of diminishing economic values of properties.
• There is a concern over whether they will be able to build the new county park and questioned if 4-H Center is a public use or a private use.   
• There is a need to be able to have areas to remove debris
• There is a need to discuss implementation.  The County may need some agreement before AEP goes out with the plan for approval from the FERC.
• It was questioned whether people have the right to go back and reclaim lost land from erosion. 
• Bulkheads and stabilization are unique issues.  Stabilization that is appropriate to a site is needed.  The ability to take out vegetation to put in stabilization is needed.
• Assignability of permits is an issue.
• The County will want to go through each map classification with AEP.
• There is a need for clearly stated goals and objectives.  
• For those landowners who have not developed their property with extensive frontage, to limit them to 4 slips but to permit someone with 100’ to have two slips, is grossly unfair.  Some measure of fairness needs to be applied. 
• How can we encourage older facilities to be upgraded?
• We need some limits on community docks. 
• Forcing public fishing piers onto private property has liability issues. 
• Instead of using parameters, use existing land use for classification of the property.   In agriculture that has not been developed, leave that to the counties to decide. 

Mr. Nester gave a presentation on map accuracy and discussed several areas on the Franklin County portion of the maps that need to be investigated.  AEP, Nester and Louis Berger agreed to go through each map and discuss them in detail and make appropriate changes.  On several high density commercial areas, there is a need to enlarge the area slightly to make sure it encompasses the actual zoning.  There was also the question of whether the area at the 4-H Center should be looked at more closely.  AEP’s maps shows that this area is less than 500 feet across making everything above  that point low density with the exception of any existing high density uses.  Due to mapping inaccuracies, Franklin County questioned whether this area could be 500 feet.

Mr. Nester also discussed the need for a procedure to change maps to take care of inaccuracies without going to the FERC.  Property owners should have an appeal process where landowners can show proof of the 795 contour.  If a low density is placed between two high density commercial pieces of property owned by same person, they should be able to put high density docks into that low density area.  The possibility of obtaining a variation in this situation was discussed.

The question was raised about whether there was a liability if wetlands are shown on the maps and agencies sign off on the plan.  It was explained that the plan shows conditions at the time the shoreline was inspected.  These conditions may change over time and changes will need to be taken into consideration,

Mr. Banta commented that the maps show general locations and at the point of development, an actual survey of the site is conducted.  The details come out in the permitting process.   

It was noted that GIS is not a legal survey but is used as a planning tool and it is appropriate for setting up general guidelines for shoreline management.  On AEP maps, 1 pixel is equal to 3’ in the field.

There was a discussion on whether the SMP classifications match the counties’ zoning.  It was explained that in the majority of cases, the SMP classification is less strict than what the county currently allows.  It would be up to the counties to rezone the area for a higher use.  The counties were asked to provide any areas where the SMP classification is stricter than the current county zoning so they may be reviewed.  The counties will meet with AEP to discuss inaccuracies and differences between the draft SMP classifications and county zoning. 

Mr. Simms explained that there are inaccuracies in all mapping and that the accuracy of the mapping used was understood from the beginning.  It was further explained that the existing maps establish a consistent base line upon which to determine limits and for each negative inaccuracy there is a likely a positive inaccuracy.   

Mr. Nester also suggested that where existing high density facilities may exist, the wording of the parameter should be changed to reflect the shoreline designation of existing high density facilities.   He suggested the inclusion of “and” and “or” in the list of parameters to clarify exactly what is meant. 

Mr. Munson asked if there were any other areas zoned for high density commercial other than those at bridge and at existing high density commercial areas.  Mr. Simms stated that the counties will be providing additional information regarding properties zoned commercial.    Establishing new areas for future marinas without an approved plan already in place is difficult because it becomes arbitrary.  

Mr. Rolfe also presented issues that Bedford County had concerning the draft plan as it currently is written.  These issues include the following:

• There is a concern about the methodology used for the boating density study. 
• Questioned the concern with number of boat docks.  Let setback and fairways limit number of slips since this is enhancing recreational use.
• Grandfathering is an issue.  There are existing things built below 800’ contour that need to be discussed.
• Bulkheading at marinas should be considered.
• The concept of a commercial harbor classification should be discussed.
• The plan must be flexible. 
• How does this plan impact placement of navigational aides, no-wake buoys, and channel markers?  AEP should establish permanent survey markers for 800’ contour. 
• If there will be an amendment to article 41, it was asked whether there can also be an increase in the water withdrawal amount that doesn’t require FERC approval?   

Mr. Simms explained that the plan doesn’t affect navigation markers or buoys.  This still falls under the VDGIF requirements.  Issues for water withdrawals are different from those for a shoreline management plan and will not be incorporated into the SMP.  

At this point in the meeting, Louis Berger began facilitating further discussion.  Mr. Theyel as

explained that issues and options would be discussed. 

High Density Commercial

Mr. Graff expressed concern that there is not fair play across the classifications.  Dock length was discussed.  AEP proposed to increase dock length from 100’ to 120’ and the size from 5000 sq. ft to 6000 sq. ft.  Mr. Banta shared data that he had collected showing 123’ in length and 8000 sq. ft. would fit better based on various types of boats.  Mr. Graff proposed that a maximum of 166’ less a no-wake zone of 50’ with no limitation on overall size be used.  This was acceptable to the group.  He indicated that there is a general concern for flexibility because each marina is different.  There was a suggestion that in addition to extending the maximum dock length to 120 feet, that structures be consolidated in order to have an overall larger structure but the total number of slips that be allowed if the 6000 sq. ft. requirement was applied would not be increased.   There was a discussion on how much of the lake area would be covered vs. area that is open to allow sun to penetrate.  If there isn’t an environmental concern, then the square footage requirement can be eliminated.  It was noted that other utilities do not have an overall maximum size requirement.  It was also noted that other utilities still require that these types of projects receive FERC approval prior to being constructed.  AEP has to make sure that a plan is developed that FERC will ultimately approve.

The issue of side setbacks and fairway distances was discussed.  There was discussion on what is a reasonable navigation distance between docks.  Mr. Graff suggested that 1.5 x the slip length be used.  AEP suggested that 2 x the slip length be used for navigational safety.  Mr. Rolfe indicated that 200’ is too much of a set back if the facility is adjacent to an existing high density use. It was suggested that the setback be changed to 60 feet if beside another high density use.  It was asked what is a reasonable side set back between a low density use and a high density use.  Mr. Graff indicated that fairway distance was adequate.  Messrs. Smith and Banta indicated that 100 feet might be adequate.  Mr. LaRoche indicated that it should be 200’ with the potential for getting a variance depending on the circumstances.  Mr. Sides indicated it should be either 200’ or 100 ‘ with the opportunity for a variance depending on the circumstances.   Ms. Johnson indicated that there is a setback of 50 feet between residential and industrial uses on the land.  It was discussed how you can’t compare the two setbacks because on land you have the opportunity to buffer the two uses with trees.  The idea of 100’ + fairway distance was presented and accepted by the committee members. 

The differences between perpendicular and parallel docks and how it affects the ability to access the shoreline by the public were discussed.  Mr. LaRoche indicated that VDGIF would prefer perpendicular structures rather than structures parallel to shoreline.  People fish the natural shoreline and if the structures are parallel, there is less ability to reach the shoreline.  It was decided that structure orientation should be perpendicular; if necessary, parallel structures could be obtained with a variance.

The idea of being able to rebuild the same footprint but being allowed to change the arrangement of slips within that footprint was discussed.

The need to add ramps to the High Density Commercial classification was suggested and accepted.  Signs meeting county sign ordinances were also discussed.  It was also indicated that signs mounted in the water are not desirable. 

Enclosures were discussed.  The marina owners suggested that there should not be a limit on enclosures.  These are needed for the convenience of customers.  There may also be the need for a rental office or bait shop.  It was agreed that some enclosures would be beneficial if located within the project boundary because they are associated with other uses within the project boundary such as gas docks.  Other types of enclosures will need to be placed outside the project boundary because this area will flood.  One 48 sq. ft. enclosure was proposed in order to collect money.  Footlocker-type structures for storage were discussed and it was decided that footlockers are not enclosures and should be allowed.  It was discussed and agreed upon that there should be at least one 48 sq. ft. (inside dimensions) enclosure per service dock because there may be more than one gas dock.  A service dock was defined as a dock that is primarily used for retail and not permanent mooring of boats.

It was noted that if there are any new marinas other than at Hales Ford Bridge area, the counties need to provide information to AEP in the form of approved plans / zoning.

High Density Multi-Use

The requirement that the building of docks needed to coincide with building of units was discussed.  There have been situations in the past where the docks were built but not the units.  Then the slips were rented to others thus becoming more of a commercial facility.  Also, people bring campers and stay the summer. 

VDH would like to see the slips coincide with the building of units because of the requirements for providing sanitation facilities. 

Mr. LaRoche indicated that he wanted to discuss density of these high density multi-use projects.  Mr. Simms indicated that the idea was that the high density classification could absorb these high density projects due to the parameters used.  There was general agreement that there should be some limit to slips based on the available shoreline.  It was decided that the existing regulations were the equivalent to anywhere between 10 to 16 slips / 100 feet of shoreline depending on water depth.   Mr. Munson of VDCR indicated that the current restrictions allow for a real plastering of the shoreline from a resource management standpoint.  There is a social carrying capacity to the lake.  At what point do too many boats make it an unpleasant place to recreate.  Increased traffic also increases noise and air pollution.

It was calculated that there could be up to 850 slips / mile of shoreline as it is currently written now.  The question that was brought up was how do you protect the resource.  The idea of adding a component of # of slips / 100’ of shoreline was discussed.  Further discussion is needed during tomorrow’s meeting.

The 5000’ sq. ft maximum size was discussed.  The idea that there should be a maximum of 400 sq. ft. per slip instead of an overall maximum size was discussed.  Having the same setbacks as high density commercial was also discussed.  This would be 100’ + fairway if beside a low density use and 60’ if beside another high density use.

The need for courtesy slips for guest parking was discussed.  The idea of one courtesy slip for every eight units was discussed.  The idea of allowing for up to a 20’ walkway before starting the 100’ length was discussed as it would better enable the structure to have adequate water depths. 

Boating density and the boating density component of the shoreline was discussed.  Berger explained that SMP boating density study addressed existing boating use during normal summer weekend traffic.  The lake was divided into 209 small sections to get a more accurate view of the different areas.  This information was then used in the parameters that determined shoreline classification.  The data was taken on 10 weekend days, two of which were holiday weekends.  The use of 12 acres / boat was used.  This is the acreage for motor boating, recognizing that you have different activities on both ends.  Lake Norman used a % capacity for entire lake.  Taking a carrying capacity for entire lake is not useful because actual boating traffic is not evenly distributed throughout the lake.

It was noted that all VDGIF recommendations on ramps were adopted in the plan.

The idea that public use boat docks that are used by government entities, fireboats, and other boats used for official use should be allowed to be totally enclosed was discussed

Ms. Johnson asked if a screened area could be provided within the project boundary for public use.  It was asked why this area couldn’t be outside the project boundary as this area will flood.  It was discussed that public fishing piers needed to be covered or have a section of pier covered.      

Mr. Poindexter pointed out that there is a need for debris off loading sites in various locations on the lake. It was discussed that access ramps within low density public use for debris off loading site and for emergency services would be beneficial. 

Mr. Nester suggested that setbacks for public use should be the same as high density areas.   It was also suggested that AEP be added to the list of entities that may operate public use facilities.   

Ms. Johnson inquired about the ability to put utilities within the project boundary.  Mr. Simms indicated that Article 41 does cover some utilities.  The plan needs to reflect this information.    

At 5:00 Mr. Theyel indicated that the steering committee would reconvene at 9:00 AM and that AEP, Louis Berger, and Franklin County would continue to meet to discuss mapping concerns.

B.  Notes for June 19, 2003

Introduction

Mr. Theyel and Mr. Perry of the Louis Berger Group began the meeting with a presentation of an agenda that included discussion on the following topics: (1) Multi Use Residential; (2) Public Use; (3) Low Density Use; (4) Shoreline Stabilization; (5) Dredging; (6) Vegetation; (7) Implementation; (8) Public Meeting Approach; and (9) Agreement Options. 

Prior to beginning discussions, Mr. Theyel questioned if there were any additional comments on the previous day’s discussion.  Discussion ensued on widths for walkways in high density commercial areas.  The committee agreed to increase the maximum width for walkways and service docks to 12 feet.

Multi Use Residential

Mr. Perry reviewed the amount of shoreline currently designated Multi Use Residential according to the Shoreline Management Plan as well as the current proposal for threshold regulations and areas that need to be discussed including:

Length:             100 feet

Setback:                       200 feet unless adjacent to another multi use

Fairway:                       2 x largest slip size

Dock Size:                    400 square ft per slip (as opposed to the previously discussed 5000 square foot maximum)

Height:                          19 (flat) or 26 (pitched)

Enclosures:                   none

Walkway:                     8 feet

Orientation:                   Perpendicular

Number of slips:     1 slip per unit served coinciding with development of units

Guest slips:                  

Discussion ensued regarding the regulations.  It was noted that under the previously discussed regulations approximately 850 slips could be built on shoreline 1 mile in length.  One proposal was to let the counties decide how many slips would be appropriate.  Another was one slip per 100 feet for low rise residential and a lesser number e.g. 1 slip for 4 units for off water lots.  It was emphasized that the appropriate number should be in proportion with the low density regulations of 2 slips per 100 feet.  Multi use standards for other utilities were discussed.  Bill Perry noted that the other projects mentioned have less dense regulations and do not have the authority to issue permits for those types of projects as AEP is seeking.  Committee members should be aware that AEP could be seeking more dense development than other utilities and with less FERC oversight.  It was noted that a lot of the areas designated multi use have already been developed but the question regarding the distance across the channel near the SML 4-H Center could open multi use residential upstream on the Blackwater River. 

Another suggestion made was to differentiate between lakefront and off water lots thus allowing one standard for lakefront and a lower standard for off water and incentives for counties to require a height restriction to protect the viewshed. 

Mr. Willard reviewed the number of slips and amount of shoreline for Southpoint, Gangplank, and the Boardwalk Cottages, and suggested four slips per 100 feet for the multi use residential classification.   Discussion ensued regarding the logic of such a proposal and the economics.  Mr. Smith emphasized the need to base the slips on linear footage, not units, Mr. Nester suggested 6 slips per 100 feet and noted that for Franklin County, the multi use residential development can not occur without county approval.

The availability of ramps was discussed.  Mr. LaRoche questioned how a developer could install the ramp instead of slips yet still make the development more appealing.   

A suggestion was made and committee members agreed to go with 4 slips per 100 feet of linear shoreline and reduce setbacks to fairway distance if adjacent to another multi use residential development. 

Discussion on lengths ensued with committee members agreeing to extend dock length to 120 feet that would include the walkway, docks and courtesy floater on the end.  Committee members agreed to expand the walkway to 12 feet.  It was also discussed allowing 1 slip per 8 or 10 units for a courtesy dock.

Public use

Mr. Perry reviewed the current draft threshold regulations and additional items for discussion relating to public use.  It was noted that fishing piers, observation piers, and bank fishing opportunities should be explored. 

Fishing Pier - Add Platforms, 12 foot wide maximum

Length:             currently 1/3 or 100

Setback:            30 feet setback or 2x fairway adjacent to High Density Commercial

Enclosures        None; Exception of an enclosed structure for public use vessels 500 square feet per slip

Height:              33 feet

Walkway:            12 feet

Orientation            Perpendicular

Ramps yes

Size:                 2,500 square feet

Regarding bank fishing, it was noted that restricted areas for riparian management areas might have to be hardened.  Maximum widths were discussed.  It was agreed that in order to determine width, the purpose should be defined.  For example if the structure is to facilitate bank fishing then it should be wider but if the structure is intended to be a transportation corridor then only a narrow width would be required.  Ms. Johnson questioned if 16 feet would be adequate at the Franklin County Park.  The purpose was questioned and it was noted that specific design proposals would require DCR approval. 

It was suggested that fishing and observation piers could be parallel to allow for flexibility and may be covered.  Mr. LaRoche will research the appropriate height for a fishing pier and get back with AEP. 

A maximum square footage was discussed and it was decided that 2500 square feet for a fishing pier was adequate. 

The location of enclosed structures was discussed.  Concerns included the size, location, and height of a fully enclosed structure and it was suggested that the location be worked out individually as each site is different.  Enclosures on service docks shall be limited to 48 square feet, as measured internally.

Orientation of the fishing piers was discussed with the committee agreeing that they could be either parallel or perpendicular to the shoreline. 

Maximum length was discussed and the 100 feet distance was increased to 120 feet to allow for a “T” shape structure.

It was questioned if fishing piers could be added to high density commercial and it was noted that public fishing piers fall under a separate section so that they may be permitted in classifications that allow structures.

Regarding bank fishing enhancements, it was noted that the type of structure would depend upon the site.  Natural structures are preferred over the wooden type structures and it would be desirable to go case by case with local review and permitting authority of site plans.

Ms. Johnson questioned if dry hydrants would be allowed within the public use classification.  Ms. Rogers indicated that people requesting dry hydrants are made aware of historic water levels and are directed to locate the intake where it will not become a navigational hazard if the water level drops.  Site plan review is not required for dry hydrants.  Ms. Johnson also inquired about underground utilities.  It was noted that there are uses that AEP is allowed to permit under its license with notification to the FERC.

Low Density Single Family Use

Extended, actual, and designated property lines were discussed with regards to specific scenarios, language, application, and variance procedures.  It was suggested that Mr. Nester provide specific language regarding utilizing the term, dock easement.  Mr. Nester indicated that a dock easement line be defined as an extended or actual side lot line or as designated on a recorded document.  It was suggested that the side setback issue be clarified for existing lots. 

Ramps were discussed and are discouraged in low density areas in order to limit boat traffic.

Regarding enclosures, Mr. Turner suggested 100 square feet for storage because of steepness of lots, and age of area residents. Following discussion on the pros and cons of a larger enclosed space, the committee agreed to 72 square feet, as measured externally and located within the back ten feet of the structure excluding the walkway. 

Committee members expressed a desire to increase the square footage requirement from 1500 square feet to a ratio based upon the length of shoreline.  The following chart was recommended:

Amount of shoreline	Maximum size*	Maximum number of slips
100-300 linear feet	1,500 square feet	2
301-600 linear feet	2,250 square feet	3
601-900	3,000 square feet	4
Each additional 300 linear feet	750 square feet	1

      *The maximum size of a single structure shall be 3,000 square feet with a minimum of 30 feet between separate docks.

      Construction of a third slip requires an adjacent residence with working restroom facilities.

Providing additional slips would prohibit future subdivision of the shoreline in order to have additional docks. 

It was questioned whether or not the SMP should address docks approved on a plat but possibly interfering with the line of sight of two channel markers.  Following discussion, it was decided that the SMP language would remain unchanged and if the location of docks approved on a plat interfered with the line of sight, the issue should be presented to Tri County Lake Administrative Commission (TLAC) for resolution.  In future planning of channel markers it was recommend that TLAC review approved plats.  It was further recommended that the SMP language be amended to not refer specifically to TLAC but to the entity responsible for overseeing the aids to navigation.

Committee members expressed concern with lack of bathroom facilities for larger dock structures.  Following discussion, committee members recommended that in order to get the third slip, there must be a residence on the property.

Low Density Multi Family Use

Perry reviewed the threshold regulations proposed on June 18 including:

Length:                         100 feet

Dock size:                    400 square feet per slip

Fairway distance:              2x the slip length

Height:                          33 feet with high density setbacks                      

                                    19/26 feet with low density setback

Setbacks:                     30 feet

Enclosures:                   None

Walkway:                     12 feet maximum

Slips:                            2 per 100’ of shoreline

Ramps                          No      

Orientation:                   Perpendicular/Parallel

The possibility of providing an observation area or courtesy dock was discussed.  One option mentioned was providing a single six foot courtesy dock for each 10 slips provided.

Boat ramps were discussed.  It was noted that it was the intent of this document to discourage high boat traffic into low density areas.  A discussion on the boat density study ensued.  Mr. Perry noted that in order to get an idea of the number of boats on the weekend, they conducted aerial flyovers for 10 days after Memorial Day through Labor Day.  Two of these days were on holidays.  Eight were on randomly chosen weekend days between the hours of 11 and 3.  The lake was divided into 209 segments based on natural breaks in the lake.  The number of boats was counted in each section, an average determined, and the information used in the development of parameters.  Mr. Rolfe questioned how those parameters impacted the shoreline classifications.  The parameters for multi use residential and public use were reviewed.  Those parameters are the same with the exception of the multi use parameter that states that the entrance to the cove is less dense than 12 acres per boat.

It was questioned why an average week wasn’t used.  Mr. Munson replied that it is common to use a Design day – the average weekend day per season.  He further explained that building on land was different than on water where there is a finite size.  Had the worst case scenario been used, then only the 4^th of July counts would have been used.  Mr. Theyel added that the plan is not only about enjoyment but also about safety. 

It was questioned whether a +/- 10% leeway regarding the classifications could be incorporated so as to eliminate any mapping inaccuracies.  Mr. Simms responded that the maps were the best baseline information available. Mr. Huff noted that additional land on the upper Blackwater River could be designated multi use residential if a survey showed an additional three feet and he offered to provide such a survey to AEP.  Mr. Simms noted that on page 12 of the draft SMP, that “AEP recognizes that there may be inaccuracies and changes over time…”.  Mr. Simms further stated that it was not the intent to conduct surveys of lands within the project boundary but to provide as accurate information as possible in an economical manner.  Mr. Simms declined Franklin County’s offer to provide a survey and noted that the committee agreed to utilize this tool along with its inherent problems to develop the management plan.  Mr. Smith suggested that the parameter for the multi use residential be increased from 500 to 600 feet.  It was agreed to continue using the 500 foot limit.

Low Density Commercial

Perry reviewed the threshold regulations proposed on June 18 including:

Length: 100 feet

Dock Size:            400 square feet per slip

Slips:                2 slips per 100 feet

Setback:            30 feet

Height:              33 feet with high density setback

                        19/26 feet with low density setback

Enclosures:            48 square feet

Orientation:            Parallel or perpendicular

Walkways:            12 feet

Ramps: No

Committee members discussed examples of low density commercial uses.  

Low Density Public Use

Perry reviewed the threshold regulations proposed on June 18 including:

Length: 100 feet

Dock Size:            400 square feet per slip

Slips:                2 slips per 100 feet

Setback:            30 feet

Height:              33 feet with high density setback

                        19/26 feet with low density setback

Enclosures:            48 square feet per service dock

Orientation:            Parallel or perpendicular

Walkways:            12 feet

Ramps: Yes for emergency vehicles or lake maintenance use only.

Ms. Johnson asked that the minutes reflect a request for additional review time on both public use and low density public use regulations.

Shoreline Stabilization

It was questioned if a property owner already has a stabilized bank and wants to replace it, would he have to comply with the new regulations.  The response was affirmative. 

Mr. Simms discussed scenarios of a cornfield that could be grassed and an area of natural vegetation.  The latter would require a plan so that there is not a loss of vegetation.  The standard for revegetation would be one for one.  If someone takes out 50% of vegetation then 50% would have to be replaced.  Briars and poison ivy could be removed and replaced with something that is beneficial.  Mr. Munson emphasized a functioning riparian buffer for nutrient reduction for enhanced water quality.  Ms. Johnson questioned if standards were available from the FERC.  Mr. Perry cited the Lake Tillery SMP that was recently approved by the FERC.  This SMP originally proposed a 30 foot wide buffer would have no more than 50% disturbed.  In its review, the FERC revised the document to disturb no more than 25%.  Mr. Smith encouraged that the regulations be written in positive language.  It was suggested that fertilizer be prohibited within the project boundary and that the counties provide incentives to those who have already cleared their shoreline to replant it. 

Several sources for standards were cited including Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD), the State of Minnesota, and DCR.  It was noted that the standards identified in CBLAD are state of the art negotiated standards, accepted in 60% of Virginia, and therefore a bona fide plan. 

It was suggested that pictures be incorporated into the plan.  It was noted that the Lake Gaston Plan allows for some limbing to allow for a view.  The importance of a vegetative buffer was stressed in light of the fact that AEP will be trying to obtain local control. 

Mr. Wills offered to coordinate obtaining various standards that might be incorporated into the document. The possibility of a subcommittee or additional steering committee meeting was explored. 

Mr. LaRoche expressed a desire to keep trees that have fallen if they are not a navigational or public safety hazard. 

Mr. Perry explained that a section on vegetative cover regulations will be included and an appendix with information on maintaining vegetative cover that includes species and best practices will be added. Committee members were encouraged to send their suggestions on what should be in this appendix.

Additional topics relating to shoreline stabilization included a variance requirement for all bulkheads, active erosion should be defined, and granite rock should be replaced with “solid rock material”.  Concerns with bulkheads were expounded upon.  Beaches will only be allowed in public areas and replacement of sand in areas not in public use will be prohibited

Dredging

Suggested changes to the dredging requirements were reviewed.  Specifically, it was suggested that dredging less than 25 cubic yards be allowed around slip and fairway areas without a permit but notification would be required.  Dredging in undeveloped areas would require a permit from AEP. 

Implementation

Mr. Rolfe suggested that an implementation meeting between the counties and AEP be held outside of the Steering Committee meeting.  No concerns were expressed and it was suggested the meeting be held on Monday, June 30.   Mr. Willard requested that the variance issue be addressed during the implementation meeting.  Regardless of implementation, the counties want presentations to their boards of supervisors.  Franklin County’s meeting will be July 15.  Bedford County’s meeting will be July 14.  Mr. Sides will offer the opportunity to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors as well.  The presentations should be an overview of the plan and how it will be implemented.

Public meetings

Discussion ensued regarding the public meetings scheduled for July 23 and 24 and the type of document that AEP may be asking its steering committee members to sign.  Mr. Simms presented several options. 

Possible locations for the SMP to be reviewed by the public were explored.  Suggestions included the county planning departments, the SMLA office, TLAC’s office, the SML Chamber of Commerce office, and libraries in Forest, Rocky Mount, and Moneta.  Regarding the availability of the document on the website, Mr. Simms warned the group that the maps are quite large and may not be able to be readily retrieved from the website. 

Suggestions were made on how to improve public meetings.  Committee members encouraged speakers to retain control of the audience and allow no interruptions.  Suggestions included accepting questions and providing answers at a later date and having a panel with a representative from each organization participating. 

Meeting with the Press

At 4:30, it was noted that members of the press had arrived to ask questions.  Steering committee members were encouraged to participate.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 5:30 PM.