Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This story made the news in the Triad tonight. Only interviewed someone from city and he said they have tried to remedy the situation and haven't been allowed to. He also said that no way were they buying the house. So it should get real interesting as stated.
In another thread someone posted about Cary purchasing some land for the Maynard widening as far back as 1994. Even without that, I think the point some people were making was that if your house abuts a main artery, you can't assume the road will stay as it is. And as for flooding, he had problems when he bought the house, and the prior owner had dome some things to try to alleviate the problems. He bought a flood prone lot ... no surprises there.
The news isn't reporting these points as part of the story.
I am not a real estate expert, but I know I wasn't allowed to mortgage a house in a flood prone area and I can't believe the town would issue a permit to build on such a lot.
As for flooding problems before the road widing, that might be possible, however it's also possible the new road and the new driveway on his property could have made it much much worse. I mean the town of cary admits the problem, the difference is the remedy.
My favorite part is where shopping center directory signs have to be 50' from roads/entrances.. which explains why the shopping centers don't have directory signs!
edit: Oh wait.. the Cary guy would be in trouble in Apex as well..
"The sign’s lettering should be professionally painted or applied; a “yard sales” or “graffiti” look with hand painted or paint stenciled letters is not acceptable."
1. The property is not flood-prone. Nor is it in a flood plain, near a creek or stream, or on flood prone soil.
The issue is uncontrolled surface water, whose remedy the owner and the town disagree on.
2. IMO, with limited legal background, the town erred by pointing out the sign ordinance. Generally, it serves the town well in preventing sign litter, but in deploying it in this case, they have put it in play in court. The ACLU has deep pockets and can push harder than the owner could alone.
The town should prove the contention wrong, and demand the removal of the sign on that basis.
If the town has truly wronged the homeowner, they should make it right.
3. Take away the surface water issue, and no one in their right mind will pay the guy $175,000 for that driveway.
Whether in a flood plane or not, his lot "floods," and is prone to do so in it's current state (and apparently, its prior state as well).
The news articles point out that some "flooding" (sorry Mike, I don't know another word for "excess of water on his lot") existed before he bought the lot, it got worse with an earlier road resurfacing project, and it got to its present state with the most recent widening. Sounds to me like he's trying to ball it all up into one and blame the Town of Cary for all of it.
Water problems (OK, maybe that's better than "flood") or not, he's left with a pretty crappy lot.
Whether in a flood plane or not, his lot "floods," and is prone to do so in it's current state (and apparently, its prior state as well).
The news articles point out that some "flooding" (sorry Mike, I don't know another word for "excess of water on his lot") existed before he bought the lot, it got worse with an earlier road resurfacing project, and it got to its present state with the most recent widening. Sounds to me like he's trying to ball it all up into one and blame the Town of Cary for all of it.
Water problems (OK, maybe that's better than "flood") or not, he's left with a pretty crappy lot.
If water drains down my driveway into my home, and I can avoid that with grading and drainage, that is a surface water drainage management problem.
If the Town of Cary creates or significantly exacerbates the problem, they should fix it.
If my gutters allow water under my house, I think "flooding" is a confusing term. It is a simple maintenance issue. This case may be different in scale, but seems to be a drainage issue more than a flood plain issue.
Misuse of the term "flood plain" is common, and also evident in this thread.
"Flood plains" typically exist where a stream or creek or other body of surface water will predictably raise in response to increased water, and will cover a predictable area.
Ergo, we have "Floodways," which are commonly contiguous to streams and are covered in minimal rain.
We also have the predictable 1% and .2% annual risk of flooding areas, AKA 100 and 500 year flood plains.
While it can be argued that all of the world can be a flood plain, that is quite tangential and academic in light of the current topic.
Some folks believe an ancient torrential rain led to covering the Earth's surface with water, and deposit of an ark on the peak of Mt. Ararat.
It has been predicted, and anecdotally covenanted, that there will never be another flood of that magnitude. That percentage would be infinite.
Putting an identifier on NCFloodMaps for that situation would be unnecessary, IMO.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 08-06-2009 at 07:33 AM..
If the Town of Cary creates or significantly exacerbates the problem, they should fix it.
But he refuses to let them fix it..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
