Previous installments of this coastal Georgia saga appeared here and here.
Last week James Holland went along on an official inspection with the County Engineer. Not surprisingly, he had some concerns and put them in writing.
(As an aside, some people seem impressed with the historical significance of their names. So, a Joshua might want to assault some walls and a Paul might be susceptible to visions on the road. The County Engineer is, apparently, not one of those.)
Now Mr. Holland writes: (quoted in full with the permission of the author)
Good Morning Paul,
As I commented in my last e-mail to you, I said that I have some concerns that I observed during our site visit yesterday that I would lay out in writing and those concerns follow.
#1- At the end of our tour I made an observation about the construction workers not wearing hard hats and you made the statement that was a concern for OSHA. Unfortunately, I made a very irresponsible statement when I agreed with you that it might not be a problem for the LIA and myself because my interests lie in environmental concerns.
On any job site, be it construction or meat cutting, landscaping etc. the safety of the employees and public come first and foremost. I also said in my last e-mail that I wanted to think about those concerns and I have and you and I were two very irresponsible adults on that site yesterday.
#2- When we first met on site and talked for a little while, I mentioned that I would like to see the storm water outfall pipes that are under water in the on site detention pond. You agreed to show me the pipe areas and we started walking around the edge of the pond until we came upon some areas of the pond embankment that were so destabilized that you advised that we should walk higher up on the pond banks to prevent an accident. You pointed out these areas to the construction supervisor that was with us that those areas must be fixed.
My further concerns about the pond bank is that this is an area of filled wetland and these banks may never be fully stabilized. Not only that but we have occupied homes in the area we were walking and in those homes may be children that could venture down to the pond and try walking in one of these areas and have an accident with very serious consequences.
Not only the above, but this is still an active construction site and the construction workers may be trying to do some work around the edge of the pond and they could possibly have an accident with serious consequences. One job that will certainly be occurring in this area and that is the mowing of the grass and tending to the flowers around the pond. I can not tell you or the owners of this development what to do but the responsible thing to do is mark these areas with signage and fence off the pond from anyone but a construction crew that should be sent in to repair and secure this pond area. This is doubly true because this pond is touted by the sales people that this is one of the amenities if you purchase one of these home sites.
#3- The storm water drains in the center of the street inside this development are not an authorized Best Management Practice (BMP). I forwarded to you a few days ago a BMP that is designed to handle storm water in paved street areas and you told me on site yesterday that what I sent you was about the same BMP as was installed in the street in this housing development. You told me yesterday that the only difference in the two type BMP'S was the one I sent you had more storage capacity. And in that respect you are absolutely correct, however, I beg to differ with you and what you have in this street causes flooding and should not be used.
What I was really surprised to hear was the fact that what you were using to cover up and yes, there is no other term for it other than "cover up" for the developer in allowing the use of this hazardous type storm drain stopped up with some sort of plastic matting that is causing street flooding when it rains. You used the term that this is an active construction site and no one was supposed to be in there but the construction workers. Your excuse for allowing street flooding was that these workers were dressed, shoes and clothing, to wade in water and be wet. That may be true in some cases, where there may be accidental spillage or whatever, but what you are allowing as the Local Issuing Authority (LIA) on these streets is intentional flooding of the streets during rain events. The Green Book (Manual) definitely says this should not be occurring when installing the proper storm drain (Sd2-P) it explains how to install this drain to "PREVENT HAZARDOUS PONDING".
There is something bad wrong on this site when you have a designed sediment basin that has storm drainpipes leading from where storm water can enter and flow into the detention basin, yet the county says it is all right for the developer to flood the streets because only the construction workers are supposed to be on site. I reference you back to the above comment to "PREVENT HAZARDOUS PONDING". The BMP manual does not differentiate between the public and construction workers when it says to "prevent hazardous flooding". If it is a hazard to the public it is a hazard to the employees of the development owner.
One other thing is what you told me the developer was doing because of these stopped up drains is that after each rain event when the water dries up they clean up the street from all the dirt and debris left in the street. If this developer would install better BMP'S there would be less dirt leaving the site and into the street. I pointed out several areas yesterday that there were certainly going to be problems, if they did not do better at installing BMP'S on this site, and I also pointed out that heavy rain is expected in this area this week end.
Well, I saw this clean up in action. When I entered the site, there were several employees street sweeping and cleaning up the site. I believe they were cleaning up the streets because someone was coming on site that they did not want to see this mess. I also made the comment that someone notified them that we were coming and that was why the rapid clean up was occurring. Your response was that no one told them that we were coming on site that it was just Friday and they were getting cleaned up to go home for the week end. The on site supervisor negated that comment when I looked at him and in a questioning manner asked, "weren't they going to be working on Saturday and even Sunday if needed" and he said "yes."
Paul, you said that you did not advise anyone that we were coming on site and I do not believe that to be quite factual because you stated that you talked to Mr. Vassa Cate to see if it would be all right to bring me on site and he gave you approval to bring me on site. They knew we were coming.
#4- When you said that these people were working on phase 2 of this project and pointed out where phase 3 area was and said phase 3 plans were up for approval right now and we talked about phase 3 being the last part of the site to be rezoned so it could be a part of the entire project. If you will remember, I also asked you about, if the plans were up for review right now, why are they already working on phase 3? I do not remember exactly what your response was but it sounded like you said something like they were putting in shallow trenches for water lines or something. Having said that, my memory of your exact words are immaterial to the fact that they were already building on phase 3 of this project without an approved plan.
#5- My question to you as the Glynn County Engineer and the Local Issuing Authority (LIA) why are they still working on this site with all its problems, including safety hazards and not having adequate BMPs on this site?
Mr. Cate is the developer for the "Mariners Landing" development and if this is what we are to expect that project to be like we have thrown to the wind almost everything that these type projects are permitted for. I have explained it several times including yesterday, that "Mariners Landing" is very near the river and salt marshes and it will have to be done better than this "Reserve at Demere" site.
It is very unfortunate that I view the "Reserve at Demere" site to be so out of whack (Environmentally and Safety wise) that I feel it is my duty to inform the County Commissioners and others that we must do something to bring this site under control. We simply must not have development here on our coast like the "Reserve at Demere."
Respectfully,
James Holland
P.S.
I have again attached a description of proper BMP for storm drains on this site.
A further communication to one of our citizens is also illuminating:
This is why I sent this alert out. These county commissioners and planners need to be brought under control. At this time, to the best of my knowledge Vassa Cate is doing by far more developing on the island than anyone else. As I pointed out in my alert, I believe the county engineer is covering up a lot of this stuff and I don't believe he would do it if he weren't getting the nod from higher up.
They can't use the kind of BMP that I had in my attachment, there is no street curbs on that street. However, what they are doing by plugging up the storm drains is illegal. The storm drains on this site all appear to be hooked up with that pond on site and that is where this storm water should be going. The only reason I can think of is that Vassa Cate does not want that muddy storm water in that pond (it is an amenity) and if it were muddy when a client came by to possibly purchase one of those shacks it would be good bye $200,000.00
We already have people mailing the commissioners about them already building phase 3 of this site without an approved plan. If you want them to have problems with that site write the commissioners and the media about that. The county engineer (Paul Andrews) personally told me that the plans for phase 3 were up for approval. If the commissioners will let this get by we need to change the voters in this area along with the commissioners. This e-mail is also a matter of public record so I don't care who see's it. James
P.S.
No street curbs, more profit. In less than 5 years the pavement will be breaking off at the edges and then those $200,000.00 shacks will start looking worse than a public housing project, at least they (Public Housing) have street curbing.
I'm not sure that any of this is fortunate or unfortunate. During the height of the "bubble," when McMansions were being sold for a million bucks, the craftsmen on the island estimated that the structures cost about a hundred thousand and the lots were going for a couple more. The rest was pure gravy. Now, you'd think with that kind of success under their belts, the developers would be living on easy street. Instead, most are still in hock to the banks and, like clockwork, there are foreclosure sales on the steps of the Court House on the first Tuesday of every month. Where has all the money gone? Can we say "bad businessmen"?
In that context, I came across a video presentation yesterday that just blew me away.
https://www.youtube.com/...
Grant Thorntonâs Dorsey Baskin has an idea. Noting that banks gather a tremendous amount of high-quality information at a substantial cost in order to calculate their ALLL, he suggests that banks can use that information to improve performance by correlating it to origination sources, underwriting terms, analyzing the profitability of loan products, and evaluating loan officers, branch performance, collateral types and more.
Really!!!!!!! This is a new idea, that banks should use the information they collect to adjust their behavior going forward???????
What's the
ALLL? Funny you should ask. Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. Or, one could say, more planning ahead to lose.
You see, failure is embedded in the financial culture. They avoid risk by planning to fail.