more red tape

Here is a different project in a nearby community. I am sending this e-mail today to the buyers of Lot 9, and Lots 10 and 11 (which are part of the current proposed 2 lot minor subdivision of Parcel B), the builder for Lot 9 (which is part of the approved and recorded plat from 2 years ago), the seller, and the attorney.

General Klytus’ Storm Water Board piecemeal retroactive (ex post facto) requirements:

I am sending this message to all of you folks because you are either directly or indirectly affected by the recent comments from General Klytus, town council member and president of the storm water board. Klytus made a grumbling comment at our Monday August 19, 2013 initial sketch plan meeting for this 2 lot minor subdivision request for the 7.1 acre Parcel B along the lines that he viewed our approach to this project as piecemeal. This comment has had me mulling many thoughts over in my mind since then.

Today I have an idea, and a suggestion (which has its risks) that will require the hiring of Hans Zarkov, local real estate attorney to help make our argument(s) at the Storm Water Board meeting (hearing) Monday September 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM. This is because in part that I am simply not capable of making strong verbal arguments on my feet, especially in a public setting. I am just not qualified, I never have been. I am more of a passive aggressive technical nuts and bolts type.

At any rate, here is my idea. I would like for us to point out that requiring the individual lot owners when they build their houses to put in their portion, and whatever downstream portion is deemed appropriate by someone at the town I presume, of a culvert and new roadside ditch along the county road is a piecemeal approach by the town. Now making this argument is risky because they might simply try to require then that the seller (read “evil developer”) build all these driveway culverts up front, even though no one can anticipate the locations that future lot owners will desire their driveways to be placed on these 3 acre+ large sized lots.

Now what I mean by “all these driveway culverts” on a simple 2 lot minor subdivision project brings up the retroactive (ex post facto) requirements portion of the problem being presented by the town. As some of you know, the building permit for Lot 9 on the previously (2 years ago) approved and recorded adjacent portion of the same plat was recently held up by the storm water board representative due to his desire to try to apply the piecemeal retroactive (ex post facto) requirement that he says should have applied to this project 2 years ago.

Well for those of you who do not know, we actually asked the planning director at that time “do we need to take this project before the storm water board?” He said “no.” We said “good, we agree, there is no need for a large lot minor roadside subdivision like this one to have to be seen at all by any storm water board”. And all was well for 2 years.

Now General Klytus tells us that that is one of the reasons that the town fired that planning director. Klytus says that in fact this project should have gone through that process, and so now he is holding up individual building permits on those lots until he is satisfied.

At that August 19 meeting Klytus also made reference to public safety issues. In my view, putting a roadside ditch with driveway culverts along a county road where one does not currently exist is creating a dangerous public safety hazard. As a father of a 16 year old new driver, I happen to be acutely aware of the various driving habits of drivers on the roads these days. It seems to me that placing this ditch gives a driver who, for whatever reason, leaves the road an opportunity to roll the vehicle introducing more chances for more serious injuries. Placing the concrete culverts gives that driver’s vehicle an opportunity to make a more abrupt stop to their potentially brief venture off the main pavement. This argument introduces the risk that the town will try to require us to widen the county road with shoulders, etc either piecemeal or all at once, etc.

My contention when it comes to roadside ditches, culverts, and shoulders in this case where they don’t currently exist is that we should leave well enough alone. In my view the surface drainage is currently working just fine. I see no “drainage problem” that exists that would reasonably allow the storm water board to require these improvements be performed either buy the seller or buyer of these lots.

What I would like from you all are your thoughts and responses to this. Do you agree that we should have the attorney help us to make these arguments at the 09.23.2013 storm water board meeting (hearing)?