Let's try to regulate zoning through Conservation, Health and other regulatory authorities other than Planning and Zoning, resulting in multiple divergent requirements.
Then let's complain when a site plan becomes overly complicated because everything required is depicted.
a few years ago I did some plats for a permitting company who was working for an energy company, so I was subbing out to permitting company. In my title block I put the permitting company as my client (since they were paying me.....just figured) and the regulator turned down my plats because I had the "wrong" name for the client. Really????
I finally just removed the client name from my title block and now don't include it ever for those types of plats.:-(
Welcome to the world of the seven agencies.
A simple project to do something like replace an old rickety bridge on a low-travel county road with a concrete low-water crossing can lead to a need for approval from the seven dreaded agencies.
Seven is the standard number. It can be more.
Historical society review to determine what if any impact this project might have on artifacts that predate Noah. EPA for any possible reason. Fish and Wildlife to ensure no impact on fish or wildlife. And so forth and so on. For many months. Heaven help you if one or more of the agencies dreams up a problem.
I'm thinking about adding a new regulation; one that says every job that has to do with grading or demolition has to be signed off by a licensed land surveyor, to ensure that no monuments or property corners will be disturbed.
how well do you think that will go over?:excruciating:
Common sense
(with a certain accent) Common sense? Common sense? We don't need no stinkin' common sense.
"Then let's complain when a site plan becomes overly complicated because everything required is depicted."
The first step here is to submit a "Concept Plan". This involves showing all existing features and ALL design items - EVERYTHING must be shown - even mailboxes. Can't just be a simple sketch like the old days This requires about 80% of the design costs on the project. If the City does not like the project they can ask for it to be completely redesigned. If the redesign requests result in a project that is un-affordable the developer is SOL!
Just nearing completion of a project where we converted an existing Mobile Home Park into a subdivision. We had to show ALL the existing features as well as ALL the new property lines. The City required everything to be shown, then said the drawings were too cluttered - became an absolute nightmare. Fire Dept. wants one thing, Water Dept. doesn't like it, someone says move this over here, Urban Trail Planner says it can't go there. Code item A conflicts with Code Item D but Code Item M says it can't even exist. Project has drawn on for over 12 years - followed me through several firms... If the City Council doesn't vote to approve it I have no idea what will happen.
It has become almost impossibly complex to develop here.
I hate zoning.
Luckily, my home county doesn't have that abomination. Hopefully we can keep it that way.
Years ago, I had a septic system design plan rejected for the sole reason that I had misspelled the Board of Heath soil test witness's first name (Dianne vs Diane).
When are we going to say enough is enough!!!
This is seriously hampering my ability to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The cost of jumping through these hoops is pushing things our grandparents and parents achieved out of our reach. It's no wonder things are stalled and nothing is getting done.
> It has become almost impossibly complex to develop here.
I think you hit the nail on the head. That's the idea behind the regulations.
I recently had a simple lot split rejected by staff and not placed on the council agenda for approval because it did not bear this statement:
It is recommended that development on this property adhere to NFPA-1144-2008 reducing structure ignition hazards from wildfires.
I got a little ruffled and explained to "staff" that they had previously reviewed the survey and returned it to me with comments...and I had addressed all of their comments. Where in the sam hill did this one come from? Do they really think that a property owner will let their junk burn to the ground if this note isn't placed on a survey??!!!
It was explained to me that staff can have "requirements" that aren't necessarily stated on a review. :pinch: I guess we need to add "mind reader" to our list of responsibilities.
WTFE.....
One of the things that burns my buns the most is having "non-professional" staff members reviewing a survey, subdivision plat set of plans, and making "policy" decisions about my work before they will pass it on for approval.
My rant is off.
Banana
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anything
We had a push from the 60's through the 80's to direct our local regs towards each other. Zoning/Planning had overlays based on Conservation which had references in Health. Every department had a hand in Historical and buffers were similar.
Our Planning Board has not had a successful substantial bylaw change approved by Town meeting in over a decade so our citizenry take it upon themselves to regulate through boards that do not need the dreaded 2/3 Town Meeting approval.
I just researched NIMBY on wikipedia. I really like CAVEman. Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
"It is recommended that development on this property adhere to NFPA-1144-2008 reducing structure ignition hazards from wildfires."
We have that same kind of BS here too - statements about what types of fencing are allowed, where garbage containers can be placed in the street for pickup, City water adequacy statements, etc. One poor guy that didn't know any better platted tree canopies because the City "required it"! I was once requested to put a FEMA Flood Plain boundary on a Final Plat. After numerous instructional events I was finally able to get one planner to understand that this was a transitory item that would change location the next time FEMA mapped the City. I told him that I would have to amend the Plat every time remapping occurred and asked him if the City was prepared to pay me for the revisions. The "requirement" disappeared after that.
Gotta put this note on minor land divisions in one township:
Note: The Lots(s) created in this document are adjacent to property that as of the date of this document, is being used for agricultural purposes. Some individuals believe that activities associated with the agricultural use constitute a nuisance or conflict with their quiet enjoyment of the lots(s). This note is intended to provide third parties with notice that these agricultural activities may exist on the adjacent property.
Really
Learn Something New Every Day
> A possible origin for the phrase "Sam Hill" is the surveyor Samuel W. Hill (1819–1889). Hill allegedly used such foul language that his name became a euphemism for swear words.
Yep. My application for a lot line adjustment to merge 4 parcels for a commercial site required an exhibit showing all existing and proposed lot lines with dimensions, existing right-of-way lines, existing easement lines, existing and proposed overhead and underground utility lines, existing and proposed structures, existing and proposed parking striping, and any major topographic features.
And this all had to fit and be legible on an 8-1/2 x 11 plat that included the City's standard title block, north arrow, scale, etc.
I called the person to which I would be submitting this exhibit and asked "are you serious?" and explained that if I showed all of these things I might as well just submit a sheet of paper with the City title block that was completely black with ink. Their response was "Can you just fade some of the line work to make it more clear?"
So I sent in two exhibits. One was just the existing and proposed lot lines with the proposed structure on the site. The other had all of the things they asked for. Guess which on they ended up using.
Most communities around here require a note like that on their final maps. However, it goes so far as to say that the purchaser of any of these lots is buying with full knowledge that normal practices necessary to agriculture and farming may cause a nuisance but they can't do anything about it.
Regulation Rant - notes
"non-professional staff"
> One of the things that burns my buns the most is having "non-professional" staff members reviewing a survey, subdivision plat set of plans, and making "policy" decisions about my work before they will pass it on for approval.
I have a client that recently elevated a structure almost 6' to get it 2' above the BFE.
I was reluctantly roped into this because I had done some surveying of the channel for an engineer.
Anyway, the client needed an EC for her insurance company and to obtain an occupancy permit from the city. I prepared said EC.
A week later some numbnuts from the city calls me and has some questions about my EC. He said he wanted a copy of my bench loop to verify that the stated elevations were correct. The City's own BM is within 300' of the lot. That's the one I used...wasn't much of a loop.
I looked up my client's obligations and requirements to obtain an occupancy permit. All they needed was an updated FEMA Elevation Certification showing the FF was at or above the minimum FF as established by the City. It was 2.27' above the FEMA BFE and 0.27' above the City's required elevation.
I told whistle-britches if he wanted a copy of a bench loop to go do one himself. He was adamant that he had to check my work and needed a copy of the bench loop. I eventually called the FPM and explained my dilemma. To my surprise he agreed that an elevation determined by a PLS on a FEMA form would be good enough.
I don't know what happened to whistle-britches...he's probably stapling and filing something...