Developer Proposes Filling Part Of Raccoon Creek Floodplain
Raccoon Creek, LLC and Mill District, LLC are applying to FEMA for permission to fill in the floodplain on properties at Weaver Drive and South Main Street respectively. But even if FEMA approves the plans, the Licking County Planning Department must also approve. Reducing the extent of the floodplain by filling is discouraged because it can lead to flooding downstream. Both companies are owned by developer Jack Lucks who purchased the properties over the course of the last year.
The Weaver Drive property, owned by Raccoon Creek, LLC, is located at the west end of Weaver at its intersection with Cherry Street. The largest piece is located east of Cherry and north of Weaver. The property also includes land south of Weaver currently occupied by trailer homes, the site of the old BP station, and land north of Crenos.
A significant portion of the site east of Cherry Street and north of Weaver has already been filled. Most of the proposed filling would also occur in this portion of the property. The filling would extend the buildable land north towards Raccoon Creek removing a small pond and a wetland area.
Click on the map for a larger view. The boundary of the current 100-year floodplain is shown in blue. The area to be filled is shown in yellow. Click here to view a portion of the Weaver Drive application.
Mill District, LLC owns the old Shurtz property on South Main Street at River Road. According to the FEMA application, they wish to fill a very small piece of the floodplain at the northeast corner of their property.
The Mill District plan shows a new 9000 square foot building with parking for 36 cars. The plan also shows other buildings and two detention ponds. This plan has very few details of the buildings. The layout of the site is quite different than previous plans revealed to the public.
Click on the map for a larger view. The boundary of the current 100-year floodplain is shown in blue. The area to be filled is shown in yellow. Click here to view a portion of the South Main Street application.
According to Environmental Planner, Jim Mickey of the Licking County Planning Commission, "Our standards are much higher than FEMA's." Mickey, a certified flood plain specialist, said Licking County will rule on the plan if FEMA approves it.
Mickey and fellow Planner, James Lenner agreed that much of the Raccoon Creek floodplain area between Cherry Street and Main Street had been filled over the years. Both said filling floodplain was generally a bad idea and could lead to problems downstream.
According to FEMA:
"Floodplain management is the operation of a community program of corrective and preventative measures for reducing flood damage. These measures take a variety of forms and generally include requirements for zoning, subdivision or building, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances.
"A community's agreement to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances, particularly with respect to new construction, is an important element in making flood insurance available to home and business owners. Currently over 20,100 communities voluntarily adopt and enforce local floodplain management ordinances that provide flood loss reduction building standards for new and existing development."
Dog Park--flood plain no more!
Now that we're filling in flood zones, I propose filling the dog park at Wildwood to take it out of the flood plain. The park floods severely after a storm, leaving our canines with no place to roam. The fence even gets washed away, requiring time-consuming and costly repair. We could get the fill from the Highway 161 construction or we could just ask Paul Kent for the best place to get it.
Oh sure, it might add a little flooding downstream. But the Columbus developer who wants to fill his flood plain has 20 acres. The dogs have only two. Surely, he won't mind losing a few feet of his land to flooding to improve the health and welfare of our dogs.
Actually, he has no right to object. Buknut is right. The developer literally has no dog in this fight. Heck, he's from Columbus and may not have a dog at all! Dog owners have invested serious capital in these dogs. (Have you ever gotten a bill from the Granville Vet clinic!?)
The decision, of course, must be purely data driven: Dogs in village/square foot of dog park x happy barks per dog = Net Flood Plain infill value. To be fair, if Jack Lucks' property can generate a higher Dog Happiness Ratio then he gets to fill his flood zone first.
Now that we've broken free of nosey do-gooders wringing their hands over developers filling in the flood plain, it's time to move forward in creating a New Granville -- as good, if not better, although perhaps in a diferent way, than Pataskala. It's time to take the dog park out of the flood zone. Let's do it for the dogs. Let's do it for Granville!
Simply outstanding
Simply outstanding. I generally bow to no one (surprise!) for fabulous on point writing but YesMan wins! Best blog YTD. Award winning. Thank heavens someone still sees the fun of it.
Flood plain filling and leadership
This is a test of our Village and Township leadership. Filling in flood plains is so obviously problematic that it should be done only in extreme circumstances and for compelling reasons. To fill a flood zone for asphalt parking lots that will create runoff into the watershed and push water downstream seems unlikely to pass the compelling need test.
The Village and Township should be pro-active. Consider the issue, and take a stand -- pro or con -- at the FEMA level. Flood zones and flooding should be a high priority.
Many will remember a big flood in the 1970s that covered the IGA and Granville lumber. There was food floating in the flood waters. This area is an area that really floods. The state doesn't only discourage not filling in flood zones, it recommends restricting building near the flood zone. Restrictions of no development within 50 feet of a flood zone or at an elevation of three feet above the flood zone are typical of restrictions imposed to limit flooding, runoff and other problems.
Granville Village and Township both have a dog in this fight, to use a popular term, and it is the job of these governments to represent broad community interests. Getting involved at the start of the process, not the end, is the best way to prevent problems.
why oppose before know the facts
Why should this be opposed without knowing all of the facts and plans? Commercial development in this area makes sense. It is buffered by the settings to avoid being a detriment to any residential areas (besides the fact that the trailers will be removed). While I feel for those individuals, nobody can argue it that eventually that area would be developed. From the information in the article, it appears quite a bit of the land has already been filled.
What information is there that anyone downstream would be flooded? The picture associated with this article implies that this would lead to someone's home being flooded. Not quite an unbiased story. Just bothers me that opposition forms before even knowing any details. It is not like the ball fields at Raccoon Valley don't flood consistently already.
Filling in floodplains is bad, end of story
"It is not like the ball fields at Raccoon Valley don't flood consistently already." That's why ballfields are a great use of floodplains. Little if any economic loss for the community or government bailout needed when it floods.
"While I feel for those individuals, nobody can argue it that eventually that area would be developed." This is ole' its inevitable, don't fight it argument.
"What information is there that anyone downstream would be flooded?" Anytime water is prevented from going to a floodplain, it must cause an increase in water flow downstream. At some time, this will cause an increase in flooding downstream. This will cause a farmer to delay getting crops in or flood out someone would might not otherwise get flooded. Why should we allow a developer to fill his pockets at the expense of others? People who support filling in floodplains are often the ones who complain loudest about giving poor people welfare. Talk about inappropriate wealth transfer!
ok, you are right as always
I like the new way of selectively pulling out sentences of a response to make your whole argument. The main purpose of the comment was that you jump to your conclusion and refuse to listen and let the process work. Where do you get your facts/opinions? You have challenged people on this site to back up position with evidence. How does my post relate to giving poor people welfare? The more you post, the more you solidify that the public got it correct when you did not get voted onto the school board.
Licking County has someone who has experience/knowledge in this area. Let him review and determine what the effects will be before you jump to your conclusions.
Specifics
How then should I respond? Vague generalities?
I understand your overall point and that is why I made my overall point clear in the title.
I explained why ballfields are an appropriate use of floodplains.
I refuted your "it's inevitable" argument.
I answered your specific question. "What information is there that anyone downstream would be flooded?"
I also explained why I believe filling in floodplains leads to inappropriate wealth transfer.
My responses were specific and concise. Your response was similar to the Wizard of Oz line. Paraphasing.. "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain."
The wizard behind the curtain is Christopher Hawkins
Since you mentioned it, I agree. You are the man behind the curtain. Well intentioned as you might be, I agree. Let's all not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. He's all levers and smoke - there is no substance there.
Enough Already
this site started off as a somewhat biased source for Granville news, and has turned into a somewhat biased source read by nitpicking, name-calling, narcissistic posters acting like jealous 13 year old girls.
sheesh. enough already.
Coming to the table
Say what you will about GP; it's certainly provided a place for discussion albeit heated and aggressive at times. Sounds like the old-fashioned American kitchen table. The colorful host of characters makes for an addictive quality to reading.
Agreed
No news resource is perfect, but GP is the only place where certain issues are discussed.
GP seems to not have a fear of ruffling the wrong feathers. Many news items that before GP would have been, and still are elsewhere, swept under the carpet are openly addressed in GP both as news items and in the blogs. It is almost as if by design GP focuses on matters that do not receive attention elsewhere. This may for some make it appear as if GP is biased, but I see it as indirectly pointing out the bias in the other local news outlet that will not even dare mention those issues. (This is analogous to the accusations of bias lodged against Fox News where in fact most of what Fox does is merely include conservative perspectives which are not allowed elsewhere in the mainstream drive-by media.)
GP has demonstrated willingness to allow any position on issues to be presented in unlimited and unedited fashion. For example, I have seen blogs directly and aggressively contradicting news stories and editorial positions. There have even been blog entries directly attacking the editor on non-GP related matters. Try that elsewhere.
GP also seems to be the only place where true investigative reporting is occurring. The other news outlet seems to have the art of reprinting press releases down pat. GP actually does research and then presents that research together with the primary sources. On one recent story dealing with the Kraner suit against Cauchon the documents readily available on GP could be used by anyone to determine whether or not Kraner had been candid in his statements to the Newark Advocate. In contrast, the Advocate presented Kraner's statements without any analysis and without the documents potentially leaving the reader with an incorrect impression.
I am also impressed with the willingness of the editor to make corrections and to admit mistakes made. Having tried to get corrections printed in other news outlets, I know this to be a rare candidness.
Lighten up
Now where is the fun in that?
Unbunch Your Panties Or At Least Stop Using Them As Blinders
Your responses were anything but specific. Concise maybe, but not specific nor logical. You sit there and anticipate arguments and then just make arguments up in your head to spew once you have the chance.
I never said ballfields weren't acceptable uses of the floodplain. I beieve it does cost the rec commission money to keep cleaning them up/repairing after they flood.
I don't think you understand my overall point. It is so much of your personality to think you are constantly right.
I never made an "it's inevitable argument". I am not saying people can't challenge when someone wants to change the use of neighboring property. I encourage it as it ensures that the procedures we have in place are being met. If it doesn't fit, then development or change of use can be denied.
The occupants of the trailers are on leases. Leases can be terminated. If on monthly lease, only 30 days would be required to force them out. Owners of the property have every right to do this. Given your religious affiliation and apparent holiness, why don't you offer to allow the trailers to be moved to your landscaped acreage? This can help negate the impact of the evils of wealth transfer. Again, I feel for those who have lived there for years. Put up or shut up and let them live on your property. You can go out and have high tea and sing and dance and be merry.
As to the wealth transfer, how was this explained? You don't even know the impact, if any, this project has on any properties downstream. I'm sure you'll pat yourself on the back if the studies do show a negative impact. Until that time, you just speculate to what you want in order to support your delusions. I never said the area should be filled regardless. Let's see what the possible impact is first. Then way benefits vs. costs.
In case you didn't know it, the Wizard of Oz was a fantasy movie. Kind of like your point of views. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain but don't discourage potential helpful development until you know all the facts.
There you go again
There you go again. You just can't help yourself.
Why do you think they call them floodplains?
"It is not like the ball fields at Raccoon Valley don't flood consistently already."
That is the point of having a non-filled in floodplain: so that the floodplain (such as the area where the ball fields are) floods rather than heretofore non-floodplain areas.
The problem is that filling in floodplains removes the very protection that nature has provided. Filling in a floodplain upstream increases the need for a larger floodplain downstream (which can end up causing non-floodplain land to become part of that now new floodplain).
The fact that "quite a bit of the land has already been filled" makes the situation even more problematic. Perhaps not as much of the area covered by the ball fields would today be floodplain if Paul Kent had not spent years filling in the floodplain on his land.
Filling in floodplains is not a good idea
Just ask anyone who has been flooded because someone filled in a floodplain upstream of them. This should be vigorously opposed.
There you go again
"There you go again" - Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential debate.
Christopher, there you go again. How could any reasonable Granville loving person regard you as anything other than a nosey do gooder when you can't help yourself from interjecting your thoughts in areas where: 1) You have no expertise. Leave floodplain mangagement to the experts. We have no idea what the downstream impact might be. It may actually improve conditions in this situation. Try data based decision making before injecting your life experiences of uninformed bias into the situation. 2) You have no dog in this fight. Whatever the impact might be, it most likely will occur downstream from precious Granville.
For the record, I am not suggesting that altering the floodplain is a good idea. I'm willing to admit that: 1) I have no basis to offer a reasoned opinion and 2) I have no dog in this fight. I'd prefer to let the people with capital at risk and training and responsibility to solve this one.
Right back at ya
Given Buknut's continual contempt for others (since when did wanting to do good become a negative?) and repeated use of "precious" Granville, I've concluded he is not a Granville resident, but very likely does indeed have "a dog in this race". How would someone become so angry, arrogant, and smug? So sad. What a waste of what sounds like a very bright mind.
Buknut sounds like a very bitter man
I would agree. His posts drip with anger, arrogance and bitterness. Maybe something terribly unfortunate has happened to him or something has past him by. One doesn't come up with the sort of wording he uses without being deeply harmed somewhere along the way. Until he came up with his "pathology" remark last night I was actually in one sense beginning to feel sorry for him.
I would also agree that he is a very bright person.
I too believe in doing good things for the community and would far more want to be a do gooder than a bad actor.
O Reilly or deeply harmed?
It so refreshing to find citizens so appreciative of strong writing and communication skills. I'll plan to borrow from some of the better influences on my communication skills in the future, since they continue to prove effective. Some of my favorites includes Rev. Jerimiah Wright, John Marks Templeton and Ann Coulter. Bill O'Reilly - not so much.
HalfFull
Actually I have no contempt for you HalfFull. You seem pretty harmless and somewhat endearing.
Encouraging
Hey- if Bon Jovi and Jesse Helms can agree on a goal, maybe there is some hope! You may not be Bill O'Reilly after all. Goodnight!