Bypassing The City's Watershed Flood Department For Permits - How Do I Raise A Lot Inexpensively/Creatively?

Question

Scenario:

-We bought a lot that was going to the tax auction several months ago.  We got a great price on it so not a lot of value is at risk relative to the cost of working through the scenarios described below

-We engaged an architect and went through permitting at the city.  All was well until

-The Watershed Department is refusing to sign off on our permit because they claim (It isn't) the property is in the 25-year floodplain (more on this below)

Additional Details:

-GIS maps and FEMA both show the property to be in the 100-year floodplain

-We can get flood insurance on the property

-The plans were redrawn where the base elevation is above what the city claims the 25-year plain is

We have talked to attorneys, flood engineers, etc. and we're weighing our options about how to proceed.  The problem we're trying to avoid is going through the city council to get a variance, which could take forever in Austin right now.  It is also uncertain whether or not the council would grant a variance.  Our position is that we don't need a variance and we're still considering suing the city because they failed to disclose these issues during our short due diligence period.  We visited the right departments, but they didn't alert us to a special form we needed to fill out.  Even if we did fill out this special form the time for them to process it would have been too long and we would have needed to close sooner for this deal.  Permits are taking around 3 months at the city right now and we only had a few weeks to close this deal.

My question:

Can you think of a creative way to raise the area where the house sits by a few feet?  I was thinking of trying to do *something* with a surveyor to decrease the lot size such that the average height of the lot is raised.  The lot is higher in the back than it is in the front.  Would an easement help here?  Something else?

I am also thinking of moving some dirt from the front of the lot to the back to minimize the expense in bringing in new dirt to raise things.  I can pull the lot dimensions or post a survey if it would be helpful to anyone in providing a potential solution.

The bottom line is that I need to shrink the lot *some*, but not too much because the size of property that can be built depends on the surface are of the lot.  Cutting space off of the front via surveying methods would increase the average height of the lot some.  Moving dirt from the front to the back would also increase the lot height some.

2nd Question

How "compact" does the soil in the back need to be if we move dirt or other material back there?  The soil would presumably be more porous and less compacted if moved from the front to the back and thus this would decrease the amount that needs to be purchased.

Any other creative solutions are certainly appreciated.  This is a city problem with issuing the permits and will not present any more problems if we're able to get them.

Bryan Hancock · Answer

Fortunately we don't have to do anything with the soil now.  The city finally admitted that the property is not in a 25-year floodplain so we just need to jump through their few token hoops and build.

James H. · Answer

Glad that worked out for you. If you still need to do any grade raising with soil, I recommend you procure a construction materials testing firm to verify compaction density and uniformity. If not, you could have issues with settlement. If you need cheap soil, you could contact some of the local excavation companies and see if they have any haul-off that they can swing your way - it might save them money if your site is closer than their spoils site.

Wayne Brooks · Answer

[i]I don't know about pre or post permitting, but  loose soil, whether dumped out of a truck or dug up and loosely spread, will compact about 10-15% (ie. 1.5" per one foot of thickness).  Doesn't sound like any "fluffing" would help much.  Other than importing soil, I'm not sure how to solve the elevation issue.

Bill Gulley · Answer

Bryan, most larger cities and counties where watershed is a problem will not allow you to change the contour of sites other than for limited structural improvements, like digging the foundation and packing the dirt around the structure for dranage away from the building. The thinking here is that if you raise one lot you're dumping water on a neighbor, which is another issue. Developments will need to pass the water retention requirements, that I'm sure you know.

I have know some builders who slowly, over time dumped a few truckloads of dirt on an empty lot and graded it level and left it alone.

After time passed they brought the matter up again.

A surveyor can do a spot elevation at the building site, if the site is not in the flood plain the permits are usuallu granted. This is also the secondary market requirement for mortgages on properties to avoid the need for flood insurance.

when you lot is ready, mowed an all, have a surveyor give you a spot elevation at the building site, have them set the set-back and corners per the plans, then take that to the city......also, you can get a soils analysis, maybe from the county. The soil generally needs to be the same as the rest of the lot unless it is substandard for building, then you will need an engineer to approve the soil after new soil has been added and compressed suitable for the structure, that could be expensive. good luck!

BTW, now ya know why you got a great deal!   :)

Bryan Hancock · Answer

Update:

The city mysteriously "revised" their maps and we're now magically in the 100-year zone.  They made our architect make a few changes to our drawings; presumably to save face and prove they were right.

The good news is that we should have some bright, shiny permits after 6 or so months of fighting with them, threatened suits, etc.

Bryan Hancock · Answer

I'm actually not the party that did the due diligence, but I am the one stuck trying to fix it.  I only have about $5k at risk right now so it isn't a big deal, but it certainly IS the city's fault that they can't staff their department adequately to process permits in under 3 months.  It is also their fault that they can't disclose what forms to fill out when you visit the Watershed Department.  A blanket "you must submit a permit application" doesn't really help if you have 2 weeks to close and the permits take 3 months...ya know?

The agent certainly isn't at fault either.  That is why we HAVEN'T been pestering them.  This is a city problem.

Does the "fluffing" apply pre or post permit?  Could I fluff some pre-permit and compact post permit?  We're only talking about 2 feet here and FEMA who is on the hook for the insurance says it is in the 100-year.  I'd like to simply comply with the variance process if it wouldn't take 6 months and tens of thousands of dollars to do so.

Wayne Brooks · Answer

Bryan,
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're a little sue happy.
You want to sue the city because your due diligence didn't expose everything you know now?
You now want sue the RE agents because they didn't know something that you also didn't know after doing your due diligence, particularly something to do with building permit issuance?
But, as far as he dirt issues...non compacted soil will usually be "fluffed" about 10%.
Before you build on any disturbed or imported soil, it will have to be compacted to approx 96% of "maximum density" not a big deal/costs as I assume you would know being in building and site prep.
Can't help you with fudging the survey.

Bryan Hancock · Answer

Yup :-)

We're trying to avoid bringing the agents that took a commission into a suit too because it is a city f-up, but that may be something else to try to recover money.  The silver lining thus far is that we don't have much money at risk.

Bypassing The City's Watershed Flood Department For Permits - How Do I Raise A Lot Inexpensively/Creatively?

Most Popular Reply