Runoff from county road owners responsibility?

[dpa]

I am working on a stormwater design for a small businss. The county is requiring that in addition to collecting and infiltrating all the stormwater that results from property improvements the owner also has to provide catch basins and collect all of the runoff from the adjacent county road. An engineer I know in the neighboring county says thay can't legally require that. He says the runoff from the road is the county's responsibility. The runoff from the road is close to half of the total retention pond volume. Anyone have experience in this area?

Thanks,
DPA

 

[SiPaul]

From what you have written it would appear that there is no need to manage the runoff from the road. However, sometimes a new development will allow runoff from the r/w onto the private property. This condition would require some measure to divert the water from entering private property.

Does the county road currently drain onto the property?

 

[dpa]

At present the full width of the pavement slopes away from the property. However the county says someday when they do road improvements they will crown the road in the center and the property owners storm drain facilities must handle all of the runoff from the centerline to the property line. The other engineer in the neighboring county says it is illegal to foist this off on the property owner. In addition they are also making the propery owner pay to widen the road in front of their property.

DPA

 

[bltseattle]

I don't think it's uncommon for projects to have to fund and construct frontage improvements, including storm drainage facilities. But if it's not in the County code you might be able to fight it. And if you are not doing frontage improvements, it doesn't seem it would be triggered. It definitely varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (one of those factors that affects the cost of doing business in the locale).

 

[bltseattle]

DPA,
Okay, now I'm curious, is this the same project as the rain-on-snow question, and what county is it?

 

[dpa]

Hi BLT,

Yep this is the same one. It is Douglas County, WA. A friend of mine in Chelan county says that permits in Chelan County are up 300% from last year but they are down in Douglas County. He also named some engineers who will not take on jobs in Douglas County. That may explain why I, who live in Seattle, got this job in the first place. When the client first called she said all the engineers in the area told her they were too busy to take it on. It's not that their requirements are bad ideas per se but most people cannot afford these kinds of improvements.

The requirements are in a new manual which I have only been able to find in draft form.

Am starting design over tonight.

DPA

 

[Maury]

In Illinois, it's common to make a property owner provide for public improvemens adjacent to a new development. I don't know of any case where a developer has been successful in fighting this. It's really up to your client to get legal advice and decide whether to fight it or not. This is not an engineering problem.

 

[cvg]

It certainly is not legal in Arizona - that's what our taxes pay for!

 

[LHA]

"Legally" you could fight it and probably win in PA as well.

Functionally, I would just do it (as my response to the rain on ice deal at this site) if it is economically feasable. But combined with your over-sized basin to hold back all the snow melt in the entire county, I think on this one, call in the lawyers. The reviewers sound out of control.

 

[dpa]

Actually this reviewer is out of control because he is a new hire still in his probationary period and extremely nervous. It turns out that the county has actually written down some of these requirements and they exceed the state DOT requirements.

The reviewer got burned on another project recently where the grading of a project got screwed up. I don't figure it was his fault but he seems to be coming unraveled about it.

DPA