LOCAL CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW
SITE PLAN FILE & FIELD REVIEW CHECKLISTS
Name of LocalityDate of Review
Name of DEQ Reviewer
Review Categories
New SF Residential New Commercial/Industrial New Multi-Family
New Accessory Structure Subdivision Redevelopment
RPA Violations Shoreline Project Exception
Pre-1989 Lot(s) Water Dependent Facilities Other :
General Information
Project Name:
File Number:
Location:
Zoning:
Parcel Acreage:
Date/Type of Approval:
Project Description
Please provide a clear, but brief explanation of the characteristics of the development.
1
SITE PLAN FILE CHECKLIST
Locality:
Section 1: General Site Plan and File Information
YES NO N/A
1. Existing site conditions.
2. Location and description of all existing and proposed on-site
sewage disposal systems, including reserve drainfields.
3. Depiction of RPA and RMA boundaries is correct.
yes no
Properly depicted RPA features when present.
100’ buffer measured from inland limit of all
required RPA features.
4. Delineation or description of buildable area,required setbacksand any other relevant easements or limitations regarding lot coverage.
5. Land disturbance over 2,500 square feet was evaluated through
a POD process.
6. Was the project developed under by-right zoning?
If not, what sort of special approvals were granted?
7. Did any of the following govern the development of this
project? If yes, please check.
Zoning overlay (Re) zoning conditions
Base zoning only Proffers
PUD conditions Special Use conditions
Other (please list):
8. ACOE confirmed Waters of the U.S. and wetland delineation.
9. Copies of Virginia Water Protection Permits necessary to
disturb wetlands.
Section 2: Required Plat Notations
YES NO N/A
10. Notation regarding the requirement to retain an undisturbed
and vegetated 100-foot wide buffer area.
11. Notation regarding the requirement for pump-out for on-site
sewage treatment systems.
12. Notation regarding the requirement for 100 % reserve
drainfield sites.
13. Notation that permitted development in the RPA is limited to
water dependent facilities or redevelopment, including the 100-foot wide vegetated buffer.
Section 3: Resource Protection Area Requirements
YES NO N/A
14. Perennial flow determination for all water bodies on or within 100 feet of the site.
15. Are non RPA non-tidal wetlands present on site? If yes, what
type of documentation is provided to demonstrate that the wetlands are not an RPA feature requiring the 100-foot buffer?
16. Only permitted uses in the RPA are shown.
17. Buffer encroachment on pre-1989 lot. If yes, were the
following conditions applied?
yes no
Encroachment was the minimum necessary to
provide area for a principal structure and the necessary utilities.
There are no encroachments into the seaward 50’
of the RPA buffer.
Mitigation plan submitted and approved.
18. Buffer encroachment on lot recorded between October 1, 1989
and March 1, 2002. If yes, were the following conditions applied?
yes no
Encroachment was the minimum necessary to
provide area for a principal structure and the necessary utilities.
There are no encroachments into the seaward 50’
of the RPA buffer.
Mitigation plan submitted and approved.
Lot was created through legal process.
Conditions imposed through previously approved
exception has been met.
Previously approved BMPs are evaluated to
determine continued effectiveness.
19. Is a WQIA required?
If yes, and WQIA was approved, did it include documentation showing the following?
yes no
Impacts to water quality and RPA features are clearly identified, along with existing vegetation.
Appropriate mitigation is noted.
Local government requirements have been met.
20. If project involves conversion from agricultural or silvicultural
land, is adequate buffer reestablishment plan shown?
21. Is this a shoreline erosion control project?
If yes, what type?
Living shoreline Bulkhead Rip-rap
Other(please list):
yes no
Wetlands Board approval?
Other local approval? (for land disturbances outside of local wetlands board jurisdiction, if applicable). Please list:
22. Shoreline erosion control techniques chosen are based on best
available technical advice from .
If yes, has it been demonstrated that the impact to the buffer has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable?
yes no
23. Was an RPA exception approved for this project? If yes, was
the following information present?
yes no
Documentation of the findings and how they were met.
Exception reviewed and approved by designated local body.
Were reasonable and appropriate conditions imposed? If yes, summarize them:
24. Does this project involve buffer mitigation?
yes no
If yes, does the mitigation meet the standards given
in the Riparian Buffer Modification and Mitigation Manual?
25. Was there a RPA violation on the site? If yes, summarize:
Section 4: Performance Criteria #1, 2 and 5
YES NO N/A
Limiting Land Disturbance
26. Existing and proposed topography shown.
27. Limits of clearing and grading are shown on plan.
28. Proposed limits of clearing and grading include the entire lot
or parcel.
29. Proposed construction footprint and limits of clearing and
grading are the same.
30. Does the extent of approved land disturbance appear to exceed that which was necessary for the project? If yes, describe:
Preserving Existing Vegetation
31. Does the plan show existing vegetation?
32. Does the plan show existing vegetation to remain? If yes, describe vegetation to be preserved:
33. Does the plan show method of protection of vegetation?
34. Does the plan show preservation of vegetation outside of
limits of clearing, grading or construction footprint?
Limiting Impervious Cover
35. Proposed construction footprint shows location of all driveways, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces, with indication of the type of surface.
Parking
36.Required parking spaces:
Number of parking spaces provided:
Maximum parking spaces required:
37. Minimum Parking space size:
Size of parking spaces approved:
38. Is pervious pavement used for any of the required parking?
39. Does the proposed project involve a parking structure?
Other
40. What is the proposed total impervious coverage for this project? sq ft (or acres) and%
41. Which of the following are included in the impervious cover for this project?
SidewalksRoadsParkingBuildings
Other (list):
42. Does the amount of impervious coverage appear to exceed that which was necessary for the project? If yes, describe:
1
FIELD REVIEW CHECKLIST
Locality:
Field Review
YES NO N/A
1. Structures or modifications are built or are under development
as they are shown on approved plan(s).
2. If there are discrepancies between the approved plan and what
was built or disturbed, is the locality aware of this? If yes, how has this been addressed?
3. Field verification of RPA boundaries appears to conform to
mapped RPA delineation.
4. Is there evidence of streams, water bodies, or other RPA
features not shown on the plans?
5. Landscape plan implemented as shown.
6. RPA buffer has remained intact and undisturbed.
7. RPA has been permanently marked on site(if required by the
locality’s ordinance).
8. RPA has been temporarily marked on site(if required by the
locality’s ordinance).
9. Limits of construction and land disturbance are being adhered
to.
10. Erosion and sediment control devices are in place, consistent
with the approved plan, and appear to be functioning properly.
11. Reserve drainfield site is unencumbered with improvements.
12. Any required mitigation or buffer restoration is properly in
place and in accordance with plans.
(Page for notes and reminder to copy all photos into this document)
1