 |
 |
 |
|
| The following summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville City Council. An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by City Council at City Hall 118 NE Main St. Simpsonville. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place and Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and faxed to the newspapers, radio stations, television stations and any concerned citizens. |
|
 |
|
SIMPSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WORKSHOP SESSION January 23, 2007 6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor: I’ll call the January 23 rd Simpsonville City Council Workshop Session to order. Thank you all for coming. Ms. Bodkins would you call the roll please.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir: Councilmember Bridges: Here Councilmember Garrett: Here Councilmember Lawrence: Here Councilmember Gecy: Here Councilmember Zitricki: Here Councilmember Larson: Here Mayor Waldrop: Here
Mayor: Thank you.
INVOCATION: Mayor: Is there anyone here who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own way. All right, Councilmember Garrett would you please ask the blessings upon this meeting in your own way.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor: All right, first item on our Agenda tonight is the time for Citizen Comments and we didn’t have anybody that called ahead and asked to be placed on the Agenda but we had a couple of sign-ups and the rules are that we’ll give you two minutes to talk to us about anything you would like to and we’ll listen and even respond since this is a workshop meeting. We would ask you to be as brief as you can and I’ll be generous with the time as long as you don’t start repeating yourself. First sign up is Bill Wasaliewski.
Mr. Wasaliewski: Thank you
Mayor: You’re welcome. If you’d state your address for the record your time will begin.
• Bill Wasaliewski 605 Kingsmore Dr. Simpsonville, Autumn Trace Subdivision. Mr. Mayor good to see you again. Council people, I know some of you, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Holmes good to see you again. I’ve come to talk about a little bit about our issues with storm water and I noticed it was your workshop meeting so I’m not going to spend a lot of time here saying I told you so, but when Duffy Woods Subdivision was brought forth to the City to be annexed in and rezoned and redeveloped, I stated some very serious concerns about an existing storm water problem that would be further deteriorated as that property behind us was developed. A lot of discussion going back and forth about where the drainage was going to go. A lot of talk about my facts vs the City’s facts and I said it would indeed be a problem for the Autumn Trace Subdivision storm water. Mr. Zitricki obviously was part of the planning process and probably knows my comments very well. Lots of that debate that it was bad for the City to bring that property in and I kind of held my piece because we fought a good battle and we lost that so – now the subdivision goes in and the developers go in and you know wanting to make sure that my property and Autumn Trace existing residents property was protected, I reviewed the storm water drawings for the plan that was approved by DHEC and you know obviously it’s DHEC’s job to review these plannings. The hydrologist, engineers, that sort of thing – it’s their job to look at these drawings and say yes they will work or they won’t work. Never disputed whether the drawings and the design would work or not but I noticed the installed conditions were not per the drawings. There are serious, and today very serious differences between the approved drawings and the as installed conditions. The young engineer from Grey Engineering said well this is good enough and our local DHEC representative quote unquote said good enough, there’s some minor changes here and there but there wouldn’t be any problem. My concern was stated then, and talked to you folks about it – Mr. Hawes, that the fact is that you can’t just make minor changes here and there on an over-all hydrology program and expect it all to work just because well it worked for me before. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. It didn’t work and now we’re having a serious run-off problem into our neighborhood that’s coming directing from Duffy Woods, because the as-approved design for storm water management for Duffy Woods was not followed and so now we’ve got inadequate storm water system that is now infiltrating into our system which was inadequate to begin with, and we’ve got water problems again. I’ve tried to address this through Mr. Hawes and City Council and the City of Simpsonville and about the most animated response I would get is the fact that it’s not the City’s problem. The City does not enforce DHEC drawings, it does not enforce the as installed and it’s not the City’s issue. Although I’m not an old man, I kind of go by some old fashioned sayings, that basically if you touch it you own it. And in my opinion the City has touched this property through annexing it in, allowing for the redevelopment and rezoning as it is and in my opinion the City is absolutely shirking it’s responsibilities by not taking an active role with DHEC, with the developer and saying look, this is our community, we all live here, we want it to be done correctly, we want to have confidence in the citizenry that the City of Simpsonville is protecting our property as existing residents. And I am very disappointed at the City’s role and the City’s response. Though they’re trying to be helpful in some ways, basically saying it’s not our responsibility. And what I’m seeking from council, from the City Administrator, is active enforcement through the proper agencies, whether it be County or State to enforce what has been agreed to by the developers. The developers submitted a storm water plan, it was approved, they didn’t follow it. And I think it’s a very simple request to say look Mr. Developer do what you said you’re going to do. The City has put some amount of it’s reputation, it’s trust, into these developers to do what’s right and I will tell you and Mr. Hawes was at the meeting, that the installation without a doubt was a lower cost solution to what was the approved plan. There are serious elevation issues, as far as how they installed the drainage. There’s serious issues around the out-flow structures that were put in. There are serious issues around the birming, and the grading and the over-all property. Now there are only 8 houses that have now been developed in that house that basically take up the opportunity for the ground to absorb rain water. Only a couple of houses are in of the whole subdivision and we’ve got serious water issues. They’re going to get worse and worse as that property is further developed with the roofs, with the houses, with the paving, with the back yards, with the driveways, and something has got to be done to make these developers do what they say they’re going to do and meet their commitment. You know, I don’t know what that answer is, I understand you’re saying it’s not your jurisdiction and you don’t want to touch it because you don’t want to own it, but to me that’s a total cop out. And I’m just seeking some help from the City to say Mr. Developer, whether it’s through DHEC or through whatever, you’re going to do what you said you’re going to do, because basically everybody sitting behind that desk right now you’re reputation is on the line for everybody in this community. So if I can answer any questions as far as my findings I’d be more than happy to do it.
Mayor: Well that sounds reasonable. Mr. Hawes what say you.
Mr. Hawes: Well, Mr. Wasaliewski is correct in the fact that we directed him or explained to him –
Mayor: Turn that towards you
Mr. Hawes: That we directed and explained to him that DHEC was the permitting authority on this development and they have complete over sight over the implementation of it. We did attend a meeting out on site and we were there with a few homeowners, the developer, the engineer for the developer, and a representative from DHEC. And at the end of that meeting the representative from DHEC was satisfied that the developers were going to do what was necessary to allay any concerns of the homeowners, Mr. Wasaliewski and others. Basically, what I believe happened recently, was a small breech of the swale behind one of the homes in the new development. What caused that we are uncertain. There’s some speculation that perhaps Duke Power was putting in a power line and trampled down the swale, but regardless, what ended up happening was the check damn was too high, the swale was too low, DHEC went out there. A gentleman from DHEC, the new person that’s there, John Cobb, who I spoke with on the phone today and received a report from today, site inspection form and he indicates that through his review the check damn needed to be lowered and the swale needed to be built back up. With those corrective actions as well as sod being installed, which is planned by the developer to occur within 2-3 weeks, those will be sufficient corrective actions to channel the flow correctly as per planned. So that’s where we are right now. I spoke with or actually met on site with the developer today, I was just driving through to see, you know the level of the check damn and so forth compared to what I saw previously and the developer was out there, and I just happened to talk to him for a few minutes and he said absolutely yes they wanted to get that sod down, that will help absorb the water, rather than having it channel through basically a clear swale area. So, as far as I can tell and in discussing with the gentlemen from DHEC, Mr. Cobb, everything that can be done out there has been done or will be done in the next 2-3 weeks. That being the last thing, being the sodding of the swale entirely.
Mayor: Does that DHEC plan consider future development. I mean is this plan supposed to be sufficient for once all the houses get built.
Mr. Hawes: Yes it’s designed for the build-out of the property as submitted.
Mr. Wasaliewski: Mr. Mayor may I make a comment.
Mayor: Sure
Mr. Wasaliewski: I never disputed the design, okay – I found the design and used some of my folks to find that the design was fine. DHEC approved the design. The issue that I brought up back in the summer and an issue that I still have today is they did not build the system per the design. I can tell you that the outflow – the water is supposed to collect in the ditch behind Duffy Woods and flow out through Duffy Woods into their own retention basin, that actually flows back into Autumn Trace retention basin, as far as over-all water plan for that area. But, the ground, the actual grade, okay, and the way the structure is supposed to be built – they’re roughly 4 feet off. The ground behind where the swale actually is
Mr. Mayor: The elevation you mean
Mr. Wasaliewski: The elevation is actually 4 feet under where it’s supposed to be. Okay. The structure – the outflow structure – what is installed is just an open drain pipe that drains it back. The actual structure was supposed to be a basin with a lid, the ground brought up, the water flows you know into that structure, this is all very clearly spelled out in the approved plan. When I brought that this was not installed, what the engineer and DHEC said was it’ll work. Well Mr. Mayor it’s not working now, okay – the developer went with a far less expensive way to get it done and we’ve got an inferior solution and I just don’t think that the City or the citizens should accept this.
Mayor: Well – all right, just one second. What did the DHEC guy say about what Mr. Wasaliewski just said, I mean are the elevations off out there.
Mr. Hawes: No. I mean he didn’t say that they were – in my discussion with him he said that the management – the water management plan is effective and he is satisfied with everything that has been done on the site save for the sod being put down in the next 2-3 weeks. He specifically said sod needs to be installed within 2-3 weeks – will be installed within 2-3 weeks as told by the developer.
Mr. Wasaliewski: But sir it’s indisputable that the elevations are off. I mean this is fancy talk around they didn’t build what was approved, but we think it’s going to work, the way it’s installed. Okay, but if you want me to I can walk you out there with anybody you want and show you that the elevations are off, the outflow structures are not what was approved and we have a problem. Okay. And I just don’t think it’s right for the City to say it’s not our jurisdiction and to say it’s okay. I mean now you’re going on a guy who’s walking the site and saying yep it looks like it might work. Well that’s where we were in August and I said it’s not going to work. Okay. You can’t just tweak a system or say it’s not going to work – give me an as – you know if DHEC comes back and says here’s some as-built drawings for the structure, you run your – tell me if it’s going to work – then we might be okay. But, my point is the City has annexed in this land, you know you’re relying on DHEC to come out here and do whatever and you know what I got from Amy Morrow at DHEC, and I don’t know if she’s still there or not, is that we don’t have enough people to enforce. I said I did the inspection for you it’s wrong. It’s very clearly not what was designed you know. I don’t have much power with DHEC, alright, I believe the City has a lot more power with DHEC than I do. All right, I mean that’s why we got Representative Garry Smith involved, trying to put some pressure on there. And you know, we got to get it right because the problems only going to get worse and you know we’re not talking about very major rain yet, and we’re not talking about a lot of development. But not only for this Autumn Trace and Duffy Woods issue, but the City has got to demand that you continue to annex in properties that these developers are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Because one little problem here and you know you push a problem down stream and then you push a problem down stream and then you push a problem down stream. Well there’s no more down stream left in the City what we have right now. I mean there’s water issues everywhere. I’m not the only guy that’s got a water issue here. Okay, and it’s just cascading errors.
Mayor: Well it would seem to me that that’s why you have engineer’s drawings is so that you’ll have some road map to go by. Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: That’s a good point – that leads into my question is – if we have plans that are designed to have an inspector approve those plans, do we – do we – do we approve the plan for the storm water that DHEC has approved – do we oversee the construction and give the final occupancy permits to these contractors.
Mr. Hawes: I’m not sure what you’re asking – do we approve the plan that DHEC has approved. We don’t approve the DHEC plan no.
Mr. Gecy: Do we oversee construction of the plan.
Mr. Hawes: We oversee construction of the subdivision
Mr. Gecy: So – but the storm water plan is part of the subdivision
Mr. Hawes: Storm water plan is an aspect of the subdivision that we don’t oversee.
Mr. Gecy: Okay, well what I’m getting at is if we can prove, and obviously you have the background as an engineer if I understand that
Mr. Wasaliewski: Yes sir.
Mr. Gecy: Would our – do we have anybody capable in the City to be able to go behind the contractors when they’re putting the storm water system in place and say that isn’t right?
Mr. Hawes: We have folks who are capable of observing
Mr. Gecy: Or that’s correct
Mr. Hawes: certain consistencies, but they are not engineers. We have no engineers on staff.
Mr. Gecy: Well maybe we need to get one for our sake if that’s
Mr. Hawes: Well I guess the way I would address that is DHEC has the engineers on staff. DHEC is the permitting authority. I don’t know that our engineers would be able to change what DHEC approves or disapproves anyway, because we don’t have basically statutory authority over that issue. That is inspected by DHEC
Mr. Gecy: Well our inspectors thought – our inspectors do approve the whole plan for the subdivision. I’ve seen the storm water plan for CVS. I looked at the detailed storm water plan that our inspector gave me. He obviously has some knowledge that this needs to be done this way.
Mr. Hawes: Correct
Mr. Gecy: And they have plans to build the pipes that go this way and to meet at the culvert and drain out
Mr. Hawes: Correct
Mr. Gecy: I see us as having some fiduciary responsibility to making sure that that plan works. I mean that’s how I would like for it to be. I don’t know why it’s not but we
Mr. Hawes: I would say – the way I would approach that is if we would notice something that is obviously wrong from the experienced eyes of our inspectors that we would notify DHEC typically that there may be an inconsistency with what they’re observing in the field with the plan, and that’s where DHEC would need to step in as the permitting authority to take care of whatever inconsistency is there. If DHEC sees the inconsistency as minimal or something that is non-substantial, non-substantive, or whatever then that is there prerogative and their perview and not ours.
Mr. Gecy: So when they have a plan, if they approve a plan that calls for a 4 foot high birm let’s say – and they don’t build it to that birm. If they come back and say okay it’s probably going to work anyway. I mean if there’s a plan to build a 4 foot birm – shouldn’t they be required to build that – shouldn’t we expect that to be built that way and settle for nothing less.
Mr. Hawes: We would typically observe the installation of what we oversee. We don’t oversee the storm water aspect. Now if something is obvious, if there was either no birm or a 1 foot or 2 foot birm, something like that that is – something our inspector would be involved in – he may just observe – he’s not involved in inspecting the storm water flow aspect of the property – we don’t measure grades, we do not measure elevations, things along those lines. We make sure the pipes are placed the way they’re supposed to be on the property as best from the experience of a non-engineer as we can.
Mr. Wasaliewski: It doesn’t take much of a trained eye to see the difference between a horizontal open pipe vs a vertical basin with an opening and a lid on type. Okay. That doesn’t take much of a trained eye to see the difference between the two of those things. Okay. How the City can again, walk through these very narrow rules of fiduciary responsibility, I don’t understand that. That just does not make sense to me that if you’re annexing property, you’re approving subdivisions, you know citizens bring forth issues, you’re saying it’s going to be okay, we’re going to make sure the developers do what they’re supposed to do. I don’t think this is a gray area, I think it’s very black and white. I was very very specific on my issues with the developer – with the engineer – and I don’t think the developers really care, or feel that they’ve got any responsibility and I believe that’s because they don’t think they’re going to get caught and I don’t think they think anybody’s going to stand up to them. And I think it’s a pattern of behavior that has been established by this City that’s got to change. That you know if you let your kids run wild – they’re going to run wild and you can’t just all of a sudden say behave, because it’s not going to happen. Well you know developers are going to make money, and they’re going to get away with what they can.
Mayor: Mr. Hawes it would seem reasonable to me that if we, and Mr. Holmes maybe you should comment on this to, if we hold DHEC accountable for storm water plans and if they submit a plan that’s approved and we have reason to believe, and I don’t mean having engineers on staff to go out there and shoot grades and that sort of thing but if we have reason to believe just by looking at something that it’s that the developer or whoever is not following that plan that we could call them or hold them accountable to come and prove to us that in fact it is meeting the plans. Because they’re going to go back to Columbia and we’re stuck with these guys who will come and jump on us so – is that unreasonable? Mr. Holmes is that something that would be unreasonable or something that we shouldn’t do for some reason.
Mr. Holmes: Well what you’re asking me a legal opinion and I’ll give you a legal opinion and then council can decide what they want to do from a policy point of view. But the issue of jurisdiction is an important one. This is an area that the state has taken over and has legislated in and has established a group that is responsible for this. Given the fact that most government agencies are trying to do a lot more services with a lot less dollars that what they were supposed to, the City has a fine line, that if they begin to step over that line, and the begin to tell DHEC what they’ve got to do and what they are not going to do with regard to this then they may just decide that the City’s going to take that over. And the reason that concerns me is the report that I have that they did on January 16, 2007 says – were storm water devices installed and it says yes. Proper installation – yes. Maintenance of those devices – yes. Did they install these other things and then they apparently got the developers engineer – Gray Engineering out there to discuss a number of things and this reports available. It’s really difficult to read, but there’s an issue about silt fences, there’s some question about the detention pond, and some vegetation around the detention pond, I just can’t read it all. But they went out there and took a look at it and what this gentleman’s issue with the City is from a legal point of view is that the proper governmental authority that has responsibility for it is not meeting his expectations and they may be quite reasonable expectations, I’m not passing on that, and the City doesn’t have the expertise, the knowledge or the staff to go do something different. And so, all I’m concerned about for the City is this is not an area that we have a responsibility in. If the council wants to take that responsibility over that’s up to the council.
Mr. Wasaliewski: And while the council’s – if I could – if the Council is not ready to take responsibility for that why would I believe the City is responsible enough to make decisions to annex in new properties. And I’m not doing that just to throw barbs at you, but in looking at this thing wholalistically you’re very happy to take responsibility for annexing in properties and rezoning – okay – you touch it you own it – I’m sorry I don’t care what – I understand the legislative issues, I understand all that but one other – if I could make just one other comment – and I’m trying not to repeat myself
Mayor: Okay I’ll give you one more comment because we’ve got lots of folks that
Mr. Wasaliewski: I understand, I understand. The design was approved. It was not built per the design, I’ve got a 6 foot stream of water coming in my back yard from that subdivision. Those are the facts. It doesn’t matter what these guys observe the next day. Those are the cold hard facts that cannot be disputed. It was not built per the plan, I got water in my back yard and I don’t think it’s going to get any better.
Mayor: Okay – Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Well I do know, because I’ve had it happen to me – when you call up to DHEC and ask who’s responsible for the storm drain, they’re mighty quick to tell you the City is
Mr. Wasaliewski: Absolutely
Ms. Lawrence: It’s like Mr. Hawes said though we don’t have an engineer. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Amy told you they were so busy. So maybe they do not monitor stuff, you know I don’t know who’s to blame for this – but it seems that
Mr. Wasaliewski: I did the inspection for her okay. I had the fax – I had the drawings marked up, the as-built condition vs the design
Ms. Lawrence: But she didn’t take your word for it. I mean, I wonder if there’s not any way that with all that’s gone on if we – I don’t know that it would be us to say that – but it looks like to me that there would have to be a second opinion from somewhere. And I mean I realize you’re an engineer, but I mean from another engineering firm that does strictly storm water – it looks like to me that there would have to be somebody to back the builder up to say yes it’s been done right. I mean I don’t know if that’s feasible. I don’t know if we can make him do that. I don’t – you know
Mr. Wasaliewski: What you’re asking is for somebody to verify that the as-built condition is okay.
Mayor: Okay – we understand. All right, is that it. I think Mr. Zitricki didn’t you wave a finger.
Mr. Zitricki: I’m gonna – I’m concerned about this also is that if it’s not built to the standard – the plans that were submitted – don’t we have an obligation to go back to DHEC to have them come back out here to verify that. Not that we’re going to have an engineer on staff to do this ourselves, but to say we have information and we need this verified by you who are responsible for this.
Mr. Hawes: To an extent when we were notified of the issue we’ve been working with DHEC
Mr. Zitricki: But DHEC’s not responding to the allegations that were made – a 4 foot below grade is pretty substantial
Mr. Hawes: That’s the first I’ve heard that – that is the first I’ve heard of that
Mr. Wasaliewski: Hr. Hawes that’s not true
Mr. Zitricki: That’s pretty easy to see. 4 feet is easy to see
Mr. Wasaliewski: I’ll give you the documentation.
Mr. Zitricki: Now maybe if you could get the documentation from Wasaliewski and submit that to DHEC to say here’s what was presented to us – and it’s not – the develop the storm water portion is not meeting the design. Here’s where it’s failing. Apparently, we have a report from DHEC that says it meets it
Mr. Hawes: Again, I would have to say that we do not inspect that aspect of the development.
Mr. Zitricki: True, it’s DHEC’s responsibility, but apparently DHEC hasn’t gone back to verify that it meets the design
Mr. Hawes: They have –
Mr. Zitricki: Well if it would meet the design then there wouldn’t be a disparity between what was said tonight and what was said in their report.
Mr. Hawes: Well this gentleman went out on a site meeting with the plans and it says proper installation of storm water management devices yes. That’s a verification in writing as far as I can see.
Mr. Zitricki: Okay, so we should be able to pull the plan out and say yes this meets the plan submitted, that we approved for annexation and development of that site.
Mr. Wasaliewski: Anyone behind that desk right now can walk out and see that it doesn’t match.
Mayor: Well here’s – excuse me but here’s the question that I see before us – is who does DHEC answer to. I mean who can we – I mean if we as a City don’t have the authority to do that who do we contact to say look DHEC is shirking their responsibility – we believe DHEC is shirking their responsibility can you get them to prove to us, for the sake of our community, that what’s going on is accurate. Who do we go to Mr. Holmes. Highway Patrol, I’m sorry.
Mr. Holmes: Well that’s a real good question. They’re funded by the general assembly, so obviously if you control the purse strings then you know we have a local senator and we have a state representative we can go to and all of us know that the Governor’s talking about restructuring, this is part of the one of those issues that where does the buck stop. The question is with state agencies, who is responsible and right now the best answer is members of the general assembly.
Mayor: So can we as a matter of practice, so that we still maintain that not overstepping our authority or bounds or whatever, can we as a matter of practice, well – call our senator and representative every time we have an issue like this or what
Mr. Holmes: Well if you’re asking for a recommendation – I guess what I would recommend – the City Administrator can draft a letter for the Mayor’s signature to go to our elected officials to indicate that we – you know that we have a citizen’s group that is strongly indicated that the storm water facilities are not built to the sedimentation and erosion control plan that was approved and there seems to be a problem and we’re not getting satisfactory response from DHEC and we would appreciate it if they would become involved in the problem. And I think that’s appropriate for us to do.
Mayor: Okay, it would seem to me that we ought to establish that as some sort of policy – not some sort of but as a policy to make sure that folks that are supposed to meet those engineering specifications are doing so. Does anybody have a problem with that. Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: I wonder why we even have a plan if they’re not going to follow it.
Mr. Wasalewski: My point exactly Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Zitricki: Do we need a motion on this or something to get this started
Mayor: Well it’s not a voting meeting so I think we just need – hearing no objection I’m going to request the City Administrator to implement that as a policy
Mr. Hawes: Sure
Mayor: And implement the policy immediately so that we can address this situation over here for you. Any disagreement to that – okay
Mr. Wasalewski: Thank you
Mayor: Thank you – the longest two minutes I’ve ever given anybody. Okay, thank you Mr. Wasalewski, next is Lee Law, and if you will – Ms. Law if you’ll state your address for the record your two minutes will begin.
• Lee Law – 40 Brookhaven Way , Simpsonville , SC Ms. Law: The reason I’m here today is because last Tuesday my daughter called me at work telling me that there was equipment in my back yard. I back up to the new Shadow Creek subdivision. I came home and found two large pieces of equipment on my property. I called the Police because I believed that was trespassing. I was told that it was not malicious so there was nothing they could do. I’ve talked to several people about this, and on Wednesday I went home – I went home and found out that there was more damage to my property. They had cut down trees, ran over some bushes that I had planted. And I knew this subdivision was going up so I was trying to prepare for it. I have talked to several people. I called Mr. Al Spain because I was under the impression that Mr. Masson was the one that was developing the property. I found out through calling Greenville County that it is no longer Mr. Hal Masson, it is a man by the name of Mr. Bruce Aho. When I called Mr. Spain to find out his first word was I’d call the cops. Well I said I did and they didn’t do anything. So, I also informed him that Mr. Aho was doing this project, and he said well I guess that’s why Mr. Masson’s not calling me back. My problem is that I’m unfortunately, I think the same thing is happening to us as what happened to this other gentleman’s subdivision. I don’t think the builder that’s doing this now is going by the plans. I have spoken to the builder. He came back out Friday, resurveyed my property and several houses down and several houses up. I have several of my neighbors here tonight and we’ve had damage to several of our homes – the property line and I’m just very concerned because I’m wondering if we are looking at the same problem. You know, are we going to have problems from the storm run-off because we do have a creek in our back yard and I’m afraid with the amount of trees and things that he’s taken down – you know I don’t know what the plan was – what he was allowed to remove or whatever, but I have a plan of the subdivision right here but it doesn’t really show trees. It shows trees in the subdivision, but not between us. And I’m just a little bit concerned because what little buffer I did have on mine is gone. And you know I would just like to know if – who’s responsible – I understand the City can’t help us as far as replacing what was lost – but before it goes any further I would like to know for sure that the man is following what he’s supposed to be doing and you know we had our homeowners association meeting last night and I reviewed minutes from several of the meetings last year and what was stated in the meetings from what I understand is not the way things are going.
Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hawes are you aware of all this
Mr. Hawes: Yes, I am aware of the situation. I was contacted by Ms. Law and another homeowner concerning possible infringement on their property by some tree clearing equipment and folks doing the tree clearing. Mr. Aho, from what I understand has, Ms. Law did Mr. Aho speak with you at all
Ms. Law: Yes, he called me on Friday – well I met him at my house on Wednesday, after he realized they’d done more damage, he came to my house Wednesday, which I’ll give him credit for that. But I’m just a little bit concerned that you know if we let it go – if I just say okay you do my restitution for me you know what’s going to happen after that. I’m looking in the future. Like I said I don’t want to happen to me what happened to this gentleman that was just up here.
Mr. Hawes: Right. We absolutely track as builts as we go along in subdivisions for the specific location and which trees are taken down. Specifically on this one we have individual itemized tree count on a map. Mr. Gecy has seen it. It shows exactly which trees are to be touched and if another tree is touched we can go after the developer. So, as far as has been done so far they have kept within that…
Ms. Law: I’m afraid I have to argue with that because I have pictures from Tuesday night of what was mine that is no longer there Wednesday. My next door neighbor, has since he put up the property line – he has – I mean – I’m pretty sure the gentleman has overstepped his bounds.
Mr. Hawes: Oh I think there was a mistake made, Mr. Aho admitted that and he’s going to give you restitution for the mistake. But as far as the City overseeing it – that mistake occurred – we were notified of it – we acted upon it immediately and he has gotten with both homeowners that we’ve been involved with and he said he was going to re-sod the lady’s yard where the tractor equipment tore up her sod and so forth and he was going to do whatever. I don’t know what he is going to do for restitution but from what I understand in talking with him that he had satisfied both of you all as far as how he was going to….
Ms. Law: Well he had satisfied me up until you know I got to looking into some other issues and number 1 it bothers me that one man gets it approved but then somebody else is totally doing it and I’m a little bit concerned about that. Also I had a few of my neighbors who stood out there the day they were cutting the trees and watched the men actually move the ties off of trees to other trees and cut the ones that were marked. And you know, now the gentlemen that were there that day I actually, when the policeman, I filed a report, I made him walk in the back yard with me. I talked to the loggers themselves and told them I want to know who your boss is and they were very nice and I just – I don’t know I just feel like somebody needs to – I think more things might be going on than we realize.
Mayor: So you just want some stronger oversight is what you want
Ms. Law: Yeah – well that plus I mean I want to make sure that we don’t run into any more problems that occur
Mayor: Same thing that the other fella did
Ms. Law: Right, because where my property is – we have – my property goes down the hill and then it goes up a hill a little bit – well he has cut – exactly to the property. He’s put a silt fencing up on now. He’s told me that’s where the line was supposed to be for the storm drain – where the retention pond they were building. But my worry is if we get a good rain like this gentleman was talking about – I mean what’s going to keep all that stuff from coming down into the creek and – I mean once he’s done what he’s got to do and the silt fence is gone – what’s going to happen then. And I don’t want to come back here in 6 months to a year and have to be this gentleman saying the same thing I told you it was going to do that. I don’t want to do that – I want it done.
Mayor: Okay, Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: Just for the record Mr. Hawes. That tree survey that I looked at showed trees marked clearly where roads were going to go.
Ms. Law: I have it right here.
Mr. Gecy: There were clearly trees cut outside of that plan along the birm or the border of these houses that were not on that plan. Because none of those plans showed a swath on a property line and then so – I wanted to make that point perfectly clear, because that’s
Mr. Hawes: Well I think that’s where the mistake was
Mr. Gecy: Their trees, a lot of trees, more than just on the property lines, had been cut out there and they actually dragged about a 15 foot wide swath along the outside of the perimeter of it. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s for a road later or some access or something –
Mr. Hawes: I think that’s for laying the piping to serve the retention facility.
Mr. Gecy: But that wasn’t listed on that tree survey. The other thing I’m kind of disappointed that the police department didn’t get involved in this. If somebody calls and somebody’s been on your property, regardless of whether it’s malicious or not I think an investigation into this should have started by the police department. And they should head straight in looking for Al Spain and found out all the information for this property under who’s a citizen. So I think the police department may have let us down there. They should have followed up with that.
Ms. Law: Can I – on Wednesday when I went home I called the Police Department back and talked to the Lieutenant and his advice was I needed to call the builder, that they you know they advised me again that it wasn’t malicious what they were doing.
Mr. Gecy: That’s good. I mean I just thought that we could have taken more of an active roll in that because that is a travesty I think to come on your property
Ms. Law: Well I lost time off work and my daughter who was home from school by herself was very upset
Mr. Gecy: Well I walked in your back yard today as you know and I looked at the trees next door at 38 Buckhead and I have pictures of some large trees on this property and my question is what is our enforcement powers. I mean I don’t care if the guy made a mistake, he went on somebody’s property and cut trees.
Mr. Hawes: We can shut down the site certainly
Mr. Gecy: Well I mean – David’s shaking his head that we can’t do that. But I want to know what our enforcement – I mean this is really bothering me because anyone of our neighborhoods any bordering community and we’re annexing all over the place, when a developer goes over the line our inspector, first of all, I’m upset that Al didn’t even know the builder was out there and a new builder was out there. I guess I’ll stop.
Mayor: Let’s let Mr. Holmes respond to that.
Mr. Homes: If the building plans, the specifications, codes are being violated we have the authority to shut a job down and that’s what we can do. I wasn’t out there, I don’t know but from a legal point of view when the police are called they’re charged with enforcement of the criminal laws of the state and of the city. There is a crime called malicious damage to personal property. If the damage was done with malice then the police can arrest for that. If it was a result of a mistake, somebody didn’t know where the property line was then that is a civil matter that’s got to be resolved between the property owner and the people that cut the trees down. So it was appropriate for the developer to say I’m responsible for damages. And I think the police investigated it and there was just a limit to what they could do there without their having problems. The shutting the job down because they encroached on somebody else’s property that may be a little bit farther than what we ought to go. But what I’m hoping is that we will be responsive to situations when people like her daughter is at home by themselves and there’s machinery out there that we call some attention to the problems where we can make sure that it doesn’t keep happening.
Mr. Gecy: Well what about taking the trees down that are not clearly in the plan.
Mr. Holmes: That is something that would merit our stopping them and until that matters resolved, and that’s going to require him to go put brand new trees out there – whatever it’s going to take to get it fixed.
Mayor: Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: Well that’s what my question was – I agree with Mr. Gecy that if this whole development has changed hands, apparently the City wasn’t even aware of that – how are we enforcing the development if we aren’t aware when a major change like that happens.
Ms. Law: Can I – I did find out through Greenville County that the property is still under Mr. Hal Masson’s name, but he says – it’s not now
Ms. Lawrence: No, I checked
Ms. Law: Oh, okay, because that’s – I’m just a little clear how that works – how it can change developers and we don’t – they don’t have to let the City know.
Mr. Hawes: To answer Mr. Larson’s question. The PD is not owner specific, it’s property specific. We enforce the PD, the Planned Development, regardless of who is developing it. They have to abide by the plan, by the Statement of Intent. That transfers with the property ownership. That zoning goes with it. The zoning transfers with the property. SO that’s how we work with whoever is developing. They must develop it according to the plan.
Mr. Larson: Well if we have neighbors who saw them changing the markers on the trees wouldn’t that be violating our recently passed tree ordinance and
Mr. Hawes: I can tell you absolutely that’s basically – I’d call that close to with malice, because there’s an intent there. No one’s put that in writing to the City – no one has any documentation that has been shown to us. The first I heard of that is right now. I would say if anybody intentionally moved a marker and placed it on a different tree that is illegal, with malice.
Mr. Larson: So where would the enforcement of our tree policy come into play with that Mr. Holmes.
Mr. Hawes: They would be in violation of it
Mayor: Do you want to respond to that
Mr. Holmes: Mr. Larson just asked me but we would enforce it through our normal enforcement mechanisms. But it is a very serious allegation, that the owner apparently paid somebody to have these trees marked so they would be saved. If someone then came out later and changed them, that would be something that I would certainly hope the citizen that saw that would make a phone call when it occurred. But if whoever saw that is willing to come forward and make some statement about that that’s a pretty serious thing. That would be something we would want to know.
Ms. Law: He’s here tonight.
Mayor: Okay, we’ll get to him. Mr. Garrett
Mr. Garrett: I have a problem with his not knowing where the property line was. I mean that – if I’m out here speeding down Main Street and I say I didn’t know it was 35 they’re going to give me a ticket any way. I mean ignorance, that doesn’t get you off the hook.
Mr. Holmes: But that’s because you’re operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in the State of South Carolina . We’re talking about two private property owners and the question is if you for example, trimming your bushes out of good faith believe that you were trimming your own bushes and you found out to your horror that you were cutting your neighbor’s bushes and not only got sued for it but found yourself being arrested and prosecuted, I mean that’s the issue. In our criminal law we punish people because they have bad states of mind, not because they did something mistakenly.
Mr. Garrett: They don’t have to establish that property line before they start.
Mr. Holmes: They should
Ms. Law: Can I clarify that for you. Before they started cutting, there were – there was a tree on my property line that had a pink and orange tag on it – there was one from say here to Mr. Hawes from that tree that had a blue and yellow one on it. It was my impression in speaking with the loggers that they were supposed to cut so far from that one over – away from our property. Unfortunately when I came home Wednesday both of those trees were gone.
Mr. Garrett: That’s all I’ve got
Mayor: Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: I want to know how we didn’t know that it had changed hands. Because our business license is very specific. I don’t care if it’s a PD or what, whoever’s doing business in the City of Simpsonville has to have a business license and so therefore he’s doing business without a business license if we didn’t know the property had changed hands.
Mr. Hawes: He already had a business license Ms. Lawrence. He was already doing business in the City. So I mean that’s how we were not notified of a new business license.
Ms. Lawrence: I don’t know – I would think that any big development like that we’d have a better grip – I mean all it took was looking it up on the internet.
Mr. Hawes: Well I mean I agree with you it would be good if we could be notified of every change of property hands but are suggesting that perhaps Mr. Spain or someone else look at the internet for every new parcel that’s –
Ms. Lawrence: No I’m saying that contractors when they start a new project, developers whatever, have to come in and get signed up for that. I mean what
Mr. Hawes: That’s not currently policy
Ms. Lawrence: What if he doesn’t do anything else in Mauldin, I mean in Simpsonville. What if he doesn’t do anything else here next year. We’ll never collect on this because he’s paid what – a minimum fee in January
Mr. Hawes: That’s conceivable – I mean certainly we could do a policy change that requires contractors when they start to
Ms. Lawrence: They should have to come in on every new thing they do and upgrade their business license. Because they’re not like a regular business on the street that’s going to be here next year to tell us what their gross was for this year.
Mr. Hawes: We have amended our business license ordinance with logical amendments previously, if you’d like to suggest a logical amendment here I’d be glad to –
Ms. Lawrence: Well I would think that would be logical that before work is started on any new project they have to come in – and I mean he should know – what he’s going to get for this project and he should pay based on that. If he doesn’t have to renew next year we will never get the money for that this year.
Mayor: Well – excuse me – are you done – do we not already have that in place by virtue of the fact that they’ve got to come in and buy a building permit before they do anything or a site grading permit to do site work. I mean wouldn’t he have come in and bought a grading permit.
Mr. Hawes: Probably the subcontractor did. See the developer is not actually the one who shows up
Mayor: But that’s notification that they’re about to begin work.
Mr. Hawes: Well certainly, we have permits all throughout the process you’re correct.
Mayor: I mean my point is rather than have contractor’s come in and get their license punched every time they do something I mean they come in and buy permits so –
Ms. Lawrence: Yeah but he’s not a builder. He’s the developer
Mayor: He’s the contractor out there doing the grading. He can’t do grading without having a permit
Mr. Hawes: No the developer – the grader is a separate person from the developer.
Ms. Lawrence: The grader can come in but the grader should, if nothing else, should be made to say who he’s doing the grading for. That should send some bells somewhere.
Mayor: But your point is to have us notified before a new subdivision starts. Before work starts on it right
Ms. Lawrence: Certainly. I mean for one thing this is a PD
Mayor: Well my question is – I mean when they came in and bought a grading permit did they not say we’re about to do some grading at this place – I mean that’s the way it works
Ms. Lawrence: But they didn’t say we’re doing it for Aho or whatever his name is
Mayor: Oh so your point is it doesn’t make a connection between the
Mr. Hawes: Between the new developer and whoever
Ms. Lawrence: My point is this went before the Planning Commission with Hal Masson, it was like the next day it was on somebody else’s table trying to get sold
Mayor: But at that point they hadn’t bought a permit right. Nobody bought a permit
Ms. Lawrence: That’s right they hadn’t bought a permit
Mayor: So they come buy a grading permit and one of the questions asked is where are you going to be grading.
Ms. Lawrence: It also should be who are you grading for. All sub-contractors are supposed to give who they are doing the work for. It’s just like if you’re having a house built, your electrician is supposed to say I’m building a house for Waldrop Construction at so and so
Mayor: I know but when you buy the permit you’ve got to give the address where you’re working – so that’s my point – I’m really confused but anyway – whatever we need to do.
Mr. Hawes: My only thought is this is like a distinction without a difference in the sense that you’ve got the same grader, the same or whatever grader shows up for a permit – it really – it doesn’t have any real meaning that it’s a different developer from what – because property changed hands.
Ms. Lawrence: Well then who is liable for the damage they do like this. You know the guys says well I’m just the grader, I just graded where he said to – who’s he – we don’t know who he is
Mr. Hawes: The developer – we can hold whoever that may be liable. Or the property owner would in this case not the City
Ms. Lawrence: Yeah, but we didn’t even know who that was when this first happened. Did you not say Mr. Spain told you he didn’t know who it was.
Ms. Law: His comment was when I said Mr. Aho, he said well I guess that’s why Mr. Masson’s not returning my phone calls.
Mayor: Does that do it.
Ms. Lawrence: I guess for now.
Mr. Gecy: Here’s another question. We have several Planning Commission members here, past Chairman and Chairman sitting now and a member – we are all excited about a planned development because why – they come back to the Planning Commission to be able to give them guidance on what they want or show changes or have a buffer here or move a pool away from the next neighborhood. They have to notify us who they are – who are they – the developer’s got to register when he starts a project and we have to write that in the rule. The developer has got to disclose who he is in the beginning because our Planning Commission people have nobody to go to I mean technically. And all this discussion the reason we approved that whole program is there was a lot of give and take on the planning commission and on council. The developer came with his attorneys and with his engineers and it went back and forth and had all these agreements. And the new developer is like what
Mr. Hawes: Well the new developer has to abide by those
Mr. Gecy: Well I know but does he know what they are because we don’t know who he is until be accident we found out from a homeowner. That’s bad.
Mayor: Well as Mr. Hawes said earlier or maybe it’s Mr. Holmes I can’t remember which one said earlier, the zoning and requirements for zoning apply to the property not to the developer. So if the property is PD then whoever starts doing the grading or doing the developing is responsible for meeting those obligations, it doesn’t matter if the original property owner entered into the agreement with us. So I mean it’s still attached to the property and that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding what Ms. Lawrence is trying to get me to understand. I mean if we – we should know if a contractor is working on a property because he buys a permit to work on a particular property
Ms. Lawrence: I can’t believe that we would sit here and say there’s a 200-300 house subdivision going in and we don’t know who’s developing it. It makes us look so foolish. God.
Mayor: I don’t feel foolish. I think once it reaches the point our laws require them to come back to City Hall for an inspection or whatever at that point we’ll know.
Ms. Lawrence: But he will never come for inspections because he’s not building. He just has sub-contractors. He has to pay based on the money he gets from selling those lots to the builders. And if he’s out there even getting ready to grade then he is doing business, so therefore he needs a business license, but Mr. Hawes said he already had one. But by
Mayor: So your point is to collect the business license fee not to determine who
Ms. Lawrence: Well I mean I want to know who it is but I want to make sure we get the business license fee to. I want to know the accountable party.
Mayor: Now I understand the angle you’re coming from. I thought we were still talking about who’s liable for damages done in this whole thing. All right Mr. Zitricki you haven’t had a say on this thing I’ll let you talk.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Hawes, I think that we’re failing here in the fact that we didn’t go out there and address the issue when it happened. Our building inspector should have been on this since a) it is a PD; and we’re supposed to have control over this and monitor it very closely. For him or a representative of the City to go out there and say I see some issues when they were brought up by a resident who lives next to this development and addressed those issues to verify whether they’re correct or incorrect is our failure.
Mr. Hawes: I would have to disagree with you Mr. Zitricki only in the sense that we cannot be on every property that is under construction at all times.
Mr. Zitricki: That’s true but this the City was specifically notified of this –
Mr. Hawes: We acted immediately upon notification.
Mr. Zitricki: I heard the lady here saying that Mr. Spain couldn’t get ahold of the developer. I didn’t hear her say he came out there and talked with me to look to make sure the trees aren’t being cut that are marked. That the lines aren’t being moved. Isn’t that our responsibility to do this.
Mr. Hawes: He did got out and observe the site that day. I don’t know that he met with Ms. Law. I spoke with Ms. Law when I was notified of it and
Mr. Zitricki: Well I think it’s imperative that we touch all bases when we do this to make sure that we’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing, especially for a PD
Mr. Hawes: Well I will say that I agree with you when we are notified of a situation we need to react and I believe we did react. This was a property owner to specific developer or grader or whatever, a property line issue. It was not identified as a violation of the development plan per se other than a single mistake.
Mr. Zitricki: Well shouldn’t we be investigating this Mr. Hawes
Mr. Hawes: We did
Mr. Zitricki: and say the plan is being followed, trees aren’t being cut in reference to the tree survey we have out there to verify that the marks are still there on the trees that are supposed to be there, the police are called out to investigate this – shouldn’t we go back and verify that there isn’t something malicious going on and that the plan is being followed. Since it is a PD we’re supposed to be monitoring this step by step during the course of development – this is in our jurisdiction here.
Mr. Hawes: Certainly. Every aspect of that PD, save the storm water aspect is our jurisdiction.
Mr. Zitricki: Well we’re not on storm water yet we’re just on trees
Mr. Hawes: I know that I’m just saying that the ones that we oversee that are our jurisdiction.
Mr. Zitricki: I think that we need to be more proactive in this and not reactive when something happens. When we’re called to look at something that there is an issue, especially when a development is starting – we’re cutting down trees that aren’t to be cut, crossing over property lines, we should be able to go out there and say yes we know where this property is, we know these trees are marked, these trees should still be here when we come out.
Mr. Hawes: Short of a survey
Mr. Zitricki: We have that don’t we
Mr. Hawes: Well we have a plat – it’s the same plat that the developer is using. I don’t think that there was any question that he overstepped into some property owners property. But it was identified as a mistake that was being addressed between the property owner and the developer directly. The developer met directly with these people on site. We saw to it that that happened. As a matter of fact I believe we supplied his direct cell phone number to these folks.
Mr. Zitricki: Well it bothers me that if this issue was handled and taken care of we wouldn’t have somebody out here complaining about what is already taking place.
Mr. Hawes: If we could be at all places at all times, we would be, but we really can’t.
Mr. Zitricki; But we’re not asked to do that. I mean this is a PD, this is the start of a new development, this is just starting, we should be on this to make sure it’s starting correctly.
Mr. Hawes: So you’re suggesting that we be there for how long of a period at the beginning of a development
Mr. Zitricki: I’m not suggesting that we be there a certain length of time but be there to verify that development is taking place correctly and following the plan.
Mr. Hawes: Well I think that’s what we attempt to do Mr. Zitricki, absolutely.
Mr. Zitricki: Well I believe you failed this time. That’s what it sounds like to me. If I’m mistaken correct me.
Mr. Hawes: No, no, in the sense that we were not there to observe the developer breaching the property line, if that’s how you want to define failure.
Mr. Zitricki: And not being there when we were called to verify it.
Mr. Hawes: From what I understand the police did appear there
Mr. Zitricki: The police did but our building inspectors
Mr. Hawes: Our building inspectors drove by the property – I don’t know that they went on it
Mr. Zitricki: Well that’s my concern. I think we need to stop and get out of the car and go look at it – that would probably be a good idea.
Mr. Hawes: I can understand what you’re saying there.
Mr. Zitricki: Thank you.
Mayor: Okay, Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I have a question. Did anyone when you pointed out to the loggers, were the trees already cut before you could try to tell them they were the wrong trees or I mean did they continue after they were warned or was it too late to
Ms. Law: Yes sir, they kept going
Mr. Larson: Even after you told them it was
Ms. Law: Yeah, I told them they were on my property and cutting down my trees and they kept going, and the next day they kept going. And I will say when I invited the police or asked the police officer to come out – you cannot see what’s going on from my front – he had a chat with me in my driveway and told me there was nothing he could do it was not malicious and I made him walk to my back yard to see the equipment sitting in my yard because he wasn’t even going to do that. And that upset me because- I guess what I’m asking is I would like someone to come to my house – I will meet them – I will take time off work with a plan that shows me what he’s allowed to cut – not on my property – on his property and let me know if he’s gone by regulations. Because, you know I understand – I want the man to build his subdivision. I’m not against it. But my property you know – this really upsets me because I’ve called a lot of people and all I’ve got is well you need to talk to this one- you need to talk to this one- you need to talk to this one. And I don’t appreciate that.
Mr. Larson: That doesn’t sound like an innocent mistake if somebody tried to warn them and they just continued ahead anyway without finding out if they were correct or not.
Mr. Hawes: You’re correct about that
Mr. Larson: going back to changing markers on the trees – and it seems like we need to – it doesn’t sound like an innocent mistake to me that they proceeded even though they’d been warned that there could be problems (TAPE CHANGED SIDES)
Mr. Hawes: intent from the beginning on the development
Mr. Larson: So who should the neighbors contact next – us or you or – if they wanted to pursue this as not being an accident but as a malicious
Mr. Hawes: If they feel it was malicious they should go to the police
Mr. Holmes: Mr. Larson I wish that things were as simple as you just described them – but if these people are willing to appear in front of a judge and sign their name under oath that this was done with malice, understand that if that turns out not to be correct they can be sued for false arrest and false imprisonment. You know everything, the laws of motion, for every action there’s an equal and oppose reaction. All I’m saying is the police who did not observe that cannot under state law make an arrest. But this lady and any of her neighbors who want to appear before a judge and swear under oath that the cutting of the trees was done with actual malice they can certainly do that and whatever consequences flow out of that they’re responsible for. But the police cannot arrest for a misdemeanor that did not occur in their presence. They’re absolutely forbidden by state law from doing that. The cutting of these trees was a misdemeanor under our law and it didn’t occur in their presence – so they couldn’t judge for themselves whether or not it’s malice. As a result of that these people will have to go to a local magistrate or even to the City Judge when he’s holding court and appear in front of him and swear under oath to a set of facts that they can convince a judge that it was done with malice. He will issue a warrant for the arrest of whoever did this.
Ms. Law: May |