Opinion ID: 874092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Subdivision Ordinance required the Board to determine whether the proposed subdivision sits within a floodplain, and if so, required Dunn to provide specific floodplain-related information.

Text: Jasso and the Gorringes contend that the Board failed to consider whether the proposed subdivision was located within a floodplain. There are two applicable provisions within the Subdivision Ordinance. Article II, § B defines floodplain as follows: The relatively flat area or low land adjoining the channel of a river, stream, lake or other body of water which has been or may be covered by water of a flood of one hundred year frequency. The flood plain includes the channel, floodway and floodway fringe, as established per the engineering practices as specified by the Army Corps of engineers [sic] ... Article VI, § G provides: 1. FLOOD AREAS: For any proposed subdivision that is located within a flood plain, the developer shall provide the Commission with a development plan of adequate scale and supporting documentation that will show and explain at least the following: a. Location of all planned improvements. b. The location of the floodway and the floodway fringe per engineering practices as specified by the Army corps [sic] of Engineers. c. The location of the present water channel. d. Any planned rerouting of waterways. e. All major drainage ways. f. Areas of frequent flooding. g. Means of flood proofing buildings. h. Means of insuring loans for improvements within the flood plain. 2. JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT: Upon the determination that buildings are planned within the flood plain or that alterations of any kind are anticipated within the flood plain area that will alter the flow of water, the developer shall demonstrate conclusively to the Commission that such development will not present a hazard to life, limb or property; will not have adverse effects on the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel or the natural environment. No subdivision or part thereof shall be approved if levees, fills, structures or other features within the proposed subdivision will individually or collectively significantly increase flood flows, heights, or damages. If only part of a proposed subdivision can be safely developed, the Board shall limit development to that part and shall require that development proceed consistent with that determination. The Board contends that adoption of a regional floodplain map is a necessary condition precedent to applicability of the Subdivision Ordinance's floodplain provisions. The Board argues that, lacking such adoption, a two-hundred-foot setback from the mean high water mark is adequate. Jasso and the Gorringes counter that the lack of an authoritative map is irrelevant to whether the floodplain provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance apply. We agree. The plain language of the Subdivision Ordinance applies to all subdivisions that are located within a floodplain. The definition of floodplain contains no reference to a regional floodplain map and the application of Article VI, § G is not contingent upon the adoption of such a map. On remand, the Board must make a determination as to whether the proposed Subdivision sits within a floodplain and apply the appropriate Ordinance provisions.