The City Council will meet this Thursday, out of sync because of the Labor Day weekend.
One of the ordinances on the agenda is a moratorium on building permits. This is not intended as a punitive measure against builders or developers. It is, rather, an attempt to let the City catch up with the issues it faces as a result of damages caused by storm water and sewer problems.
During several recent Council meetings, people from various neighborhoods have come before the body to alert us to problems of raw sewage, or storm water, or a combination of the two flooding into their houses. The resulting damage and loss of personal effects has been extensive. The assignment of responsibility to the deity has been convenient, but not necessarily beneficial to these residents.
The proposal before the Council is simple. The Storm Water Board is developing a Storm Water Master Plan. This process should take about six to nine months. During the last Council meeting, I asked an engineer working on the plan, if that plan would result in better development( better meaning less flood-prone or less likely to inflict flooding on surrounding houses or buildings ) after the plan is completed and its findings implemented. He agreed that it would.
A woman from one of the affected areas told of a vacant lot near her house. She suggested that water which flooded the streets of her neighborhood and poured into basements there, might have been made more severe if that vacant lot were built upon, adding impervious surface to the equation of an obviously problematic drainage area. Further, she said, if it were dedicated to use as a detention basin for flood waters, the vacant lot might actually reduce the problem rather than exacerbating it.
The lot to which she referred is in an established subdivision. Construction on that specific lot is permitted "by right". The only element of oversight the City now has on such a parcel is a review of plans pursuant to a building permit, because the overall drainage questions have been answered years ago when the development was granted approval. Unfortunately, unexpected problems are arising to prevent proper drainage, and this is resulting in property damage and loss of personal items. Have rain patterns nullified earlier assumptions? Has maintenance lagged? Or is something else amiss? Hopefully, the Storm Water Master Plan now in development will explain what has gone wrong and point us in the direction of fixing the problems.
The expected time to complete the Master Plan is not excessive. If it is done correctly and thoroughly it may prevent, or at least, lessen the severity of flooding throughout the city. Of course, a plan will not solve anything in and of itself, it will need conscientious application and enforcement to be effective.
As the old joke goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is to stop digging. In this case, for six to nine months.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Is this a moratorium on building permits citywide, or just the areas affected by the recent flooding?
Surely we're not saying that necessary in-fill building downtown counts the same as another house on Castlewood?
Is the "6 to 9 months" included in the moratorium to prevent this being seized upon by the Luddites as a means of permanently halting progress?
Given the propensity throughout the flooding debate for the coucnil's president to insiist that the council itself take over the job of deciding who builds, when and where (you're sitting right there, and should have noticed this pontification proclivity by now), is this moratorium really going to be used to provide time for a stormwater master plan, or is it the opportune break the president needs to try and hijack the process of awarding/approving building permits?
The whole thing sounds well intentioned but brimming over with red flags. Stop digging? Perhaps that makes sense. Have the council decide the terms? Hazardous, unless of course the council's handsitters intend to steward the project and not let it slip away to the obstructionists.
Even then ...
Something I did not mention in this post is the fact that within a little more than 24 hours of this ordinance being offered "for discussion only", during comments by public officials, an application for a building permit for the very piece of property discussed had been requested.
Six to nine months is used as the expected time needed to complete the drainage study because that is the timeline laid out by the engineers. If salutary consequences could be expected, perhaps this moratorium could act as a prod to move with deliberate speed and beat that time goal.
One reaction to the ordinance during the discussion phase was to label me a tree hugger, OUCH. But, that is not the basic reason for the proposal. It is simply to allow the study to proceed and for there to be no concurrent additions to the over-burdened drainage system, which might have been disallowed under the recommendations of the Master Plan, had it been available to guide the process while diagnosing the cause(s) of the problem.
"Only those building permits which could result in additional flow of stormwater into the system, or those building permits which could result in the paving of currently un-paved ground, are subject to the moratorium."
To be code-compliant, most significant alterations of a structure requires a building perit, because these typically don't add to the drainage system, they would not be caught in this net. Other projects of larger scope would not likely be caught either, because the planning phase would probably take up most of the six to nine months anyway.
The fact remains though, something is wrong and something needs to be done to correct it. The moratorium allows the study to go forward while not adding to the existing problem. Perhaps more importantly, it it allows diagnosis of the problem to to come closer to a conclusion.
John,
I attended the meeting and remember the lady from Castlewood that you mention. It seems perfectly logical to me.
The city needs to address our storm water and sewage problems before giving out building permits to anyone who requests one.
I don't consider either one of us Luddites, although I may be questionable in some circles, but common sense dictates that further investigation is needed and as you said, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
"Only those building permits which could result in additional flow of stormwater into the system, or those building permits which could result in the paving of currently un-paved ground, are subject to the moratorium."
I think the general idea of a moratorium to sort some development issues out could be sensible but the site description language needs to be more specific and the Council's role extremely limited and well defined as Roger mentions.
The bit shared above seems to suggest that a lot downtown, where a building may have existed for a hundred or more years before being demolished, would be denied a building permit. The expansion of a preexisting building could be denied as well. Several Main Street and West End sites come immediately to mind.
It will take careful wording to ensure that a mechanism I assume to be aimed at discouraging sprawl and its associated problems, if only temporarily, also doesn't hamper the urban densification that is often the solution to such.
My biggest lesson learned in observing the operation of city government, over the past couple of years, is to always look under the rock.
When and who did this idea originate with?
IAH:
I'm the guy under the rock, and it came up when the parade of people reporting storm and sewer water in their basements stretched out to about one hour or a little more.
These people want answers and I hope some down time will allow solutions to be formulated.
bluegill:
Perhaps this ordinance is overly broad, but it has a limited time horizon. It would be unlikely for any large scale development to pass from conception through completion during this narrow window.
If any of the other Council members or the administration find a need for greater specificity, they are welcome to bring forth suggestions.
I assumed that it was you but we all know what ass...
Well aware of the the stream of people to the podium. Thanks for answering my question. When you give me a straight answer, I believe you. Can't say the same for some of your colleagues on the council.
John:
How many building permits would the city likely approve in the next six to nine months if such a moratorium did not exist?
On average, how much money would you guess each of these applicants would invest in these properties? Of that money, how much would be spent with local contractors, electricians, plumbers, engineers, surveyors, attorneys, hardware stores, etc.?
Can the council afford to make such a decision in these tough economic times?
New Albany already has a planning and zoning office. We already have a plan commission. We have a zoning board. A board of zoning appeals. 3 city planners. Perhaps the most prudent action the city council could take is to "prod" these offices to work more efficiently instead of adding another hoop for its constituents to jump through.
I applaud you for trying to tackle a tough problem, but I must disagree with your proposed moratorium. Really bad idea. I hope you reconsider.
I’m not taking a position on whether a moratorium is the best way to address permitting issues. I do want to note that problems with permits are not limited to sewer issues.
For example, two weeks ago the city issued a demolition permit for a building on E. Market St. The problem is that the building is a contributing structure in a local historic district, or was, until it was demolished several days later. The Historic Preservation Commission neither receive an application for nor approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the century old structure.
Ideally, a demo permit would not have been issued without a COA, or at least the property owner would have been informed when receiving his permit that a COA also was needed. I contacted the individual with city who approved the permit, asked what the process was for approving permit to demolish structures in our historic districts and was told, “Oh, I don’t know anything about that.”
From a legal standpoint, I feel very comfortable that the permit’s issuance with regard to the building code did not supersede any requirements to comply with the preservation ordinance. First there’s the constitutional question: can the city executive, by issuing the permit, in effect nullify the legislative intent of the city’s legislative body? I think not. Both laws are in place and property owned must comply with both. Second, the permit on its face states that the appliance must comply with all other laws and that the permit is void if all other laws are not followed. Therefore, not only did demolition violate the preservation ordinance, but also violated the building code since the building was demolished pursuant to a voided permit.
Some COA applicants have told the Commission that another city office assured them that all requirements had been met to do X, Y, Z without being informed of the preservation districts. Ignorance of the law is not a defense but I can see how a lay person would rely on a permit and verbal assurance from the city as good evidence that all requirements had been met. Historic districts work best when the public is best informed. It’s easier to prevent a demolition than to rebuild a building. But how to get the word out?
Since the property owner, his business partner, and the independent contractors did not have a COA, all now have potential liability for damages of several tens of thousands of dollars. Maps of the districts are displayed in the building commission office. They have brochures explaining the historic districts guidelines and boundaries. However, there is no official step in the application process where demolition requests are reviewed for historic impact. Ideally, a database of all structures in the city would flag those in districts. If nothing else, all permits should contain a conspicuous statement that a COA is required if the property is in a district.
I understand that Mayor England and Carl Malysz are working on the permitting process. The HPC has been assured that both will be at our next monthly meeting when we will be briefed in the new permitting procedures.
The proposed moratorium is simply that: a proposal.
It recognizes there is a problem with drainage, and it offers time to await the answers which a Master Plan promises.
Additional language to make the ordinance more specific or more tied to areas where storm damage has been felt would be welcome addtions, in my view. It would not be wise to prioritize problem areas based on the unprecedented rainfall of August 4. Unfortunately, many of the people who reported flooding said they also experience that flooding on more normal, though heavy rainfalls. And, some will say that the attendance at the Council meetings does not accurately reflect the total scope of the problem.
I have no desire for development to come to a screeching halt and the city become a ghost town where incompetent government forces innovative developers and developments out of town. Nor do I want to have a city where people fear rain because it brings a toxic soup of runoff and sewage into their houses.
We have a problem. The only way I know to fix a problem is to ascertain what is wrong and lay out plans to fix it. That takes time. Time to work through the problem is what the moratorium can offer.
Those who feel the moratorium places an undue burden on them or the city are welcome to add their voices to the conversation. The one thing they can not say is that we don't have a problem. If they don't like the moratorium, what would they suggest be done with potential building as we wait for the solutions the Master Plan promises?
I would hate to the poor schmuck who buys a house built before the Master Plan is completed, only to find that the Plan would have recommended against it. Then what?
John, I support your proposal as a reasonable attempt to understand a serious problem.
This is an interesting solution to a challenging problem indeed. One can certainly feel for the unfortunate folks who continue to suffer through the recent unusually high rainfall events.
Unfortunately however, development is not a faucet that can be turned on and off in 6 month intervals. It tends to occur in seasons, rising and falling over a longer period of time. Momentum builds momentum.
Veterans Parkway is an excellent example of this. The Kohl's project on Charlestown Road likewise. Meijer's as well. Each of these projects had a flurry of activity and then a season where little to no activity occurred.
So, in a well intended attempt to solve the problem the very real possibility is that development will be stopped for not 6 months, but perhaps a few years.... as the pipeline will be completely empty going forward for some time.
Add to that the fact that we are in the middle of the most difficult recession the country has seen for the past 3 decades, and a potential for disaster in terms shutting down future job and tax base creation exists. TBoof's post brings up some very real concerns from the other side.
Additional enforcement of existing laws by current staffers is a great start. Layering in more bureaucracy to the process is an inadequate solution.
Mr. Gonder asked for solutions to the very challenging problem of flooding as an alternative to his proposal.
Here's a simple one.... ask developers to have a 3rd party review by GRW, Presnell, or another approved engineering firm and have that firm certify that the post construction run off will be less than the pre-construction run off.
Quality development can therefore continue. Truth is that folks who are unwilling to have a 3rd party review are the developers who have helped to create the mess.
The quality builders with integrity will have no problem with this solution.
Let's not get overzealous and throw the baby out with the bathwater here folks.
A simple solution to the problem without shutting the whole thing down for a long time.
Anonymous:
The primary focus of the moratorium is on "by right" developmet.
My view of why this is problematic is that these individual lots are in sudivisions or developments that did undergo third-party review, but did so several years ago.
Standards may have changed in that period. Surrounding conditions may have changed in that period. Often times a development is constructed with a drainage swale in the plan. Through time, surrounding building has altered the flow of water into the swale, and the once-effective solution will no longer work. Simply, things change.
The bigger picture of drainage control should be answered by the Master Plan under development now. The sooner that plan is completed, the sooner citizens can be assured that what appears to be no-holds-barred development and excessive paving, is, in fact, able to be safely added to our current drainage system. If the Master Plan says we are inadequately served by the current drainage system-that it is not up to the task of handling more runoff, wouldn't that dictate that a much harsher moratorium be placed on development?
Don't we already have a moratorium of sorts in place as a couple subdivisions await sewer credits to move toward completion? That has not stopped construction dead in its tracks.
John,
Every four years we come up with a new Stormwater Master Plan at which time it is totally ignored.
Is there anything the Council can pass, including a moratorium, to force the Planning, Redevelopment and Zoning Boards to get in sync with the Stormwater Board and probably our 8th Stormwater Master Plan? Thank you.
Post a Comment