City Site Plan Requirements

[hmcrae]

I am the engineer on a 1-acre site plan. The Subdivision eng brought a 12-inch water line to service our lot and the adjoining lots from the original property. The City is now telling me our building owner must, for fire safety, provide 1000-feet of offsite water line to complete the developer's loop, as the developer's dead end line is not satisfactory for fire safety. Anybody ever dealt with this?

 

[bimr]

What do the Contracts say? The subdivision developer probably has a contract with the City as to who is responsible for what.

Is the City attempting to force you to finish the subdivision developer's contract?

There are no hard and fast rules with these types of contract arrangements. For large projects, municipalities may be more accomodating to entice a development. For small projects, probably less accomodating.

Some personalites in these types of Contract discussions may be able to drive harder bargains and get better deals.

 

[hmcrae]

The city subdivision rules say the developer shall provide fire flows. Our guy bought the lot with the understanding of utilities included. I think the City is adding requirements on the site plan that belong to the subdivision. Its not really an answerable question without reading the entire set of city books, but generally speaking, is it fair to say that offsite improvements to provide water service to a site plan should have been addressed with the subdivision?

 

[bimr]

That is typically what is done.

 

[sam74]

If the city or utility approved what was built in the first place I would think that it is their problem. The Engineer of record should have provided calculations and layout for their approval before it was built. If they approved them its their baby now.

 

[hmcrae]

just making sure I did not miss the point of subdiv. thanks.

 

[Hoagie]

You may be able to install a (private) tank and booster pump system on your site.

 

[eea]

Who did the building owner buy the lot from? By chance the original sub developer? If so, him or your client might be on the hook to complete the main. City's stance will likely be it is the DEVELOPMENT's agreement to complete the main. Last one on the block gets to finish it. I've seen happen a number of times.

 

[hmcrae]

My client bouught it (is buying) from the developer. We are the first on the block. When the area is fully built out, all will loop. I would not complain about completing a loop across our property. They want a the developer's dead end main extended into a loop (a loop which is supposed to meet fire flow requirements under the subdiv. ordinance). I would be happy to tell my owner that he is required to complete the main across his property (or even 30-feet as a goodwill gesture to the city). I am uncomfortable telling him he is required to complete 1000 feet of 12" main across a different lot that he has nothing to do with and then to bore underneath a road to loop a line that was left by the subdivision owner. We would be providing a looped line for all the others that come along after us, without any chance to recover the cost.

 

[sjohnAM]

I have had this problem several times before in dealing with City officials. The usual circumstance is that the City missed the fire requirement on the approved subdivision plat, or a new code was adopted after the subdivision was accepted by the City. If the code is the same, then the City is trying to recover from the initial review. My stance has always been that the City accepted this subdivision and is responsible for the fire protection thereafter. Usually, this has ended with the City splitting the cost, or you pay the upfront cost, then as the other lots are developed, each tract owner pays their percentage, thru the City, back to you (so once it is all developed, you are only out the cost across your tract). This process invites new development, but leaves someone else to complete the development. Of course, this would be subject to the contacts and codes in place at your location.

 

[eea]

Agree, but guess what, you are still in front of the City trying to get a permit. It is the Owner's fight, not yours. My stance, I'm an engineer, not a laywer.

 

[beej67]

If you're working for the owner, then his fight *is* your fight, but you explain the fight in detail to the owner, and tell him to have his lawyers ready. A good owner will pay you to be in his corner during this fight, because working it out with engineers is going to be cheaper than working it out with lawyers.

The best approach is to sit down with the municipality and the owner at the same table, and explain how it's better for everyone involved to come to an agreement on how to fix this without bringing lawyers into the mix. When you sit down with them, you need to have a list of ideas to fix the situation that would work for both parties - either cost sharing or some way to recoup the cost from future land buyers, or whatever. If the municipality balks, then it's lawyers guns and money time, and the subdivision developer shouldn't be ignored.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[eea]

That's a good approach, but make sure you aren't so much of an advocate that you burn a bridge with City staff. I've worked in the same town for 20 years now and see them a lot more than a one-off developer.

This situation still sounds to me like the original subdivision developer hasn't completed his portion of the agreement with the City. If hmcrae's client wants to build in advance of the completion of the loop, it sounds like they'll have to bear the expense.

Also be ready for some tough questions, ie Why should the City cost share, how much did they pay for the property, did they know the loop was incomplete ...