Loading...
Riverview Estates-CS 931022Memornndum To: Frank Trando, Interim City Manager From: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer RE: Johnny Thompson Property (25 ac. on Sandy Lake) Date: October 22, 1993 For sometime now I have been researching information to ascertain whether or not a twenty-five acre tract of land owned by Johnny Thompson on the south side of Sandy Lake Road west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and east and north of the Eagle Point Subdivision is in or out of the floodplain and whether or not the owner of the property has the right to fill the property. The following represents the list of information that I researched to try to arrive at this decision: 1. The City's initial Floodplain Ordinance//219, effective date June 24, 1980. 2. Flood Insurance Rate Map//480700005, effective date August 1, 1980. 3. Survey of Mr. Thompson's property by J.B. Pike no date. However, this information was provided to FEMA in approximately 1983. 4. Internal FEMA memo written by Ron Morrison while he worked for FEMA, dated May 4, 1983. 5. Letter from FEMA, signed by Ron Morrison, stating Mr. Thompson's property is above the 100-year floodplain, dated May 6, 1983. 6. Letter from Troy D. Glidewell, Fire Marshal/Building Official, certifying that no fill had been placed on the land for the previous nine years, dated June 14, 1983. 7. Letter from FEMA, signed by Dell Greet, stating that FEMA is aware of some filling taking place on property south of Sandy Lake near the eastern city limits and that the fill should cease and desist, dated June 22, 1983. 8. Letter from FEMA, signed by Ron Mordson, stating that Mr. Thompson's property was incorrectly shown in the floodplain and identifying several things that the City needs to do to bring the property out of the floodplain, dated July 19, 1983. 9. Letter from the City of Coppell to FEMA requesting that a floodway revision be performed for Mr. Thompson's property, dated July 21, 1983. 10. Letter from FEMA, signed by Ron Morrison, to the City stating that FEMA had no objections to the revision of the floodplain, but the City must provide FEMA with an ordinance, dated August 3, 1983 (as a side note, the City has some concern about this letter in our file as it has no signature and it has no letterhead from FEMA. I am attempting to obtain a file copy from FEMA). 11. Flood Boundary and Floodway Map//4801700005, effective date February 15, 1984. 12. A conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) for the Riverchase reclamation project dated May 16, 1985. 13. Plan of Reclamation for Northwest Dallas County Flood Control District (Riverchase), June 1985. 14. The City's current Floodplain Ordinance//87390, effective date October 27,1987. Johnny Thompson Property Page 2 15. A letter requesting final map amendment for the Riverchase Reclamation Project dated July 20, 1988. 16. Acknowledgment from FEMA that the Riverchase Reclamation Project would be reflected on maps to be issued August, 1988, letter dated August 15, 1988. 17. Flood Insurance Rate Map #4801700005D, preliminary date September 22, 1988. 18. Memo from Shohre Daneshmand concerning fill on Mr. Thompson's property that lists several things that in her opinion must be complied with, dated February 25, 1991. 19. Claim filed against the City by Mr. Thompson because of his inability to fill his property, dated April 15, 1991. 20. Letter from Mr. Thompson to Alan Ratliff giving a brief history of the property, dated May 19, 1991. 21. City of Coppell Flood Insurance Revision Study by Morrison Hydrology/Engineering Inc. submitted to FEMA, May 20, 1991. 22. The City's current Flood Insurance Rate Map #4801700010D, dated October 16,1991. 23. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map #48017000010E, dated December 18, 1991. 24. Memo from myself to Alan Ratliff concerning Mr. Thompson's property stating my opinion that he does not have a valid fill permit for the property, dated November 10,1992. 25 Memo from myself to Alan Ratliff concerning Mr. Thompson's property detailing a meeting I had with Mr. Thompson, dated November 16,1992. 26. Letter to Mr. Thompson stating that in my opinion he does not have a valid fill permit and that all filling should cease and desist on the property, dated November 24, 1992. As can be seen, there has been over ten years of history 'on this piece of property. The whole issue boils down basically to one question: Does Mr. Thompson have a valid right to fill his property at this time without complying with our current Floodplain Management Ordinance? The following represents the somewhat in depth history of Mr. Thompson's property: In June, 1980, the City of Coppell adopted its initial Floodplain Ordinance g219. Shortly thereafter in August, 1980, the initial floodplain maps for the City of Coppell were provided. Those maps showed Mr. Thompson's property to be contained within the 100 year floodplain with a base flood elevation on the property ranging from 442 to 443. At sometime in the next three years, Mr. Thompson began contacting FEMA concerning the fact that his property was shown in the floodplain. To support his claim with FEMA, Mr. Thompson submitted a 200 foot grid survey of his property to show that it was above the base flood elevation. The survey that Mr. Thompson provided to FEMA showed elevations on his property ranging from 442.2 to 445 (Remember that the base flood elevation was approximately 442 to 443). Basically, the survey of his property showed that his entire property was above the base flood elevations as shown in August of 1980. Mr. Thompson contacted Bill Black with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Mr. Black reviewed the information and told Mr. Thompson that his property appeared to be above the Johnny Thompson Property Page 3 base flood elevations. Mr. Thompson also contacted Mr. Ron Morrison, who worked at FEMA at the time. Mr. Morrison then contacted Mayor Andy Brown concerning the floodplain on the property. The contact with Mayor Brown by Ron Morrison was via a May 6, 1983 letter in which Mr. Morrison stated that the property in question was above the 100-year flood elevation and that there appeared to be an error in the mapping of the area. Mr. Morrison stated that if the City agreed with the information and we wanted to issue a development permit, then the City needed to send a letter to FEMA requesting a floodway revision. Mr. Morrison also stated that he is assuming that no fill had been placed on the property since August, 1980 when we initially entered the floodplain program. Mayor Brown wrote back to FEMA stating that the City was aware that Mr. Thompson was trying to get a map amendment. Also, about the same time,Troy Glidewell wrote a letter certifying that to the best of his knowledge no fill had been placed on the property in the last nine years. Once this information was received by FEMA, they followed-up with a letter dated July 14, 1983 which states that they acknowledge that the property was incorrectly shown in the 100-year floodplain on the August, 1980 maps. This opinion was based on the survey information provided by Mr. Thompson. They also stated that if the City wanted to follow through and correct the error, there were two pieces of information that needed to be supplied: 1) a letter stating the City is requesting a floodway revision without a map change; and 2) the City adopting a resolution or amendment to the City's Floodplain Ordinance incorporating the changes. FEMA stated that after they received the initial letter requesting the revision they would respond with a letter stating whether or not they support the revision. If they support the revision then, at that time, the City could issue development permits. The FEMA letter also stated that shortly thereafter we should comply with item //2. Scott Barnett, the Planning Coordinator, followed-up with a letter to FEMA, dated July 21, 1983, requesting a revision. On August 3, 1983, FEMA responded to Mr. Barnett's letter. The response stated that FEMA had no objections to the revisions of the floodway as shown on the survey information provided by Johnny Thompson. The letter also stated that the City must provide FEMA with the resolution to the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance. The letter also stated that after we provide the revision to the ordinance, then the existing floodway may be revised and then the City may issue development permits. The August 3rd letter specifically talks about revising the floodway not the floodplain. Several letters talk about revising the floodway. I am unsure whether FEMA was specifically stating that the provisions that they were speaking of were going to take the property out of the floodway and as such the City could allow development in the floodplain or if it was FEMA's intention all along to remove this property from the floodplain and the floodway. That statement is in conflict with the July 14, 1983 letter which stated that the City could issue permits and then do the revisions to the floodplain ordinance. In reviewing the floodplain ordinance in effect at this time, there was a provision for the Appeal Board i.e., the City Council, to make interpretations as to the exact location of the boundaries of the special flood hazard areas, especially if there were conflicts between mapped areas and actual field conditions. The floodplain ordinance in effect at that time also stated that the person Johnny Thompson Property Page 4 contesting the floodplain boundary could appeal through the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board could have made a determination that the property was not in the floodplain. If that process would have been followed, then most likely an ordinance or resolution of some effect would have been adopted amending the city's floodplain management ordinance to show that this property was not in the floodplain. This would have satisfied FEMA requirements. Saying all the above, it is my opinion in reviewing this information that if the survey information provided by Mr. Thompson to FEMA in the early 1980's was in fact a true representation of elevations on the ground and if that survey information was in fact fled into the same datum elevation used by FEMA in establishing the floodplain water surface elevations and if Mr. Thompson had not placed any fill on the property, then it is my opinion that in 1980 Mr. Thompson's twenty-five acres of property were not in a designated floodplain or floodway. It is important to note that I stated in 1980 his property was not in a floodplain or floodway. FEMA also acknowledged that the property was probably not in the floodplain. In early 1980 Mr. Thompson could have filled in his property. However, it is important to note that Mr. Thompson did not fill in his property in the early 1980's. It is also important to note that floodplain elevations are based on existing conditions at a point any time and those existing conditions change as upstream properties develop. Typically, because of upstream development and because of better modeling technics and improvements in the program itself you see a different water surface over a period of time. As that water surface changes, properties are affected. Some properties are brought into the floodplain and some are taken out of the floodplain. But the floodplain boundary itself is based strictly on water surface elevation. The water surface elevation changes because of development in the watershed. The next point that I would like to make is that even though FEMA acknowledged Mr. Thompson's property was most likely not in the floodplain in 1983, there were additional maps issued in February, 1984. The additional maps still showed Mr. Thompson's property in the floodplain. To the best of my ability, I have been unable to determine if Mr. Thompson fried an appeal on the 1984 maps. Each time a new map is issued, it supersedes all previous maps and letters of map revisions. Any errors in the new maps must be appealed. It is important to note that Mr. Thompson never obtained a letter of map revision or letter of map amendment for his property. What he did obtain was an acknowledgement that at a point in time his property was higher than the existing lO0-year water surface and as such his property was most likely not in a designated floodplain area. But Mr. Thompson never performed a detailed flood study to reclaim his property after it was shown in a floodplain. The next piece of the puzzle is the Plan of Reclamation for the Northwest Dallas County Flood Control District known as the Riverchase Reclamation Project. This project reclaimed the majority of the property south of Mr. Thompson's property. The owners performed a technical study of the property including the effects of all fill on the property. It was submitted to FEMA and in May, 1985 FEMA issued a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Based on FEMA's review of the project, their opinion was that the fill would not increase the 100-year flood Johnny Thompson Property Page 5 elevations upstream of the project. Upstream of the project is Mr. Thompson's property. The Riverchase Reclamation Project began and in July, 1988 the filling of the project and the construction of a swale to help reduce the water surface elevation were complete. All as-built drawings and certifications were then provided to FEMA for a final letter of map revision. FEMA responded in August, 1988 that the effect of the filling and the swale had been incorporated into the most recent study and that the new maps would reflect the fact that the Riverchase area had been reclaimed out of the 100-year floodplain. (One thing to note in reviewing the maps submitted with the Riverchase Reclamation Project is that they had some topo and contour information provided and the elevations provided were anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 foot lower across Mr. Thompson's property than the elevations that Mr. Thompson submitted to FEMA in the early 1980s to verify his property was not in the floodplain. It is quite possible that different datums were used to establish the benchmarks. However, it would be nice to have benchmark information on the two different surveys.) The maps received by the City in 1988 did show the effects of the reclamation project and showed all of the Riverchase property out of the floodplain. Also, the same maps showed Mr. Thompson's property out of the 100 year floodplain. The water surface elevation adjacent to his property in 1988 showed an approximate two foot increase in the water surface elevations from the 1980 FEMA maps i.e., now the water surface elevation adjacent to Mr. Thompson's property ranges from about 444.5 to about 445. Our floodplain maps were revised in October 16, 1991 and those maps show Mr. Thompson's property outside of the floodplain. In December 1991, the City received preliminary floodplain maps. Those maps showed Mr. Thompson's property back in the floodplain for the first time since the 1984 floodplain maps. Mr. Thompson did not file an appeal to the maps. His only appeal would have been to contest on the basis of elevation. However, because of the rise in the 100-year water surface across this property, his property was no longer lower than the 100- year floodplain elevation and hence was in a designated floodplain. In conclusion, my opinion is that Mr. Thompson does not have approval to fill his property. This is based on the following: 1) The current water surface elevation adjacent to his property ranges from 444.5 to about 445. The elevation of his property ranges from 443.4 to about 444.9. This means that his property is lower than the 100-year floodplain elevation. 2) He does not have a floodplain development permit. 3) He did not appeal the changes to the most recent map. 4) He has not provided a study to FEMA to receive a letter of map revision from FEMA to fill his property. I would be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience. I will be discussing this information with the City Council at the November 9, 1993 Council meeting.