Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Jamestown Villas complaint photos 09.11.09

The following photos accompanied the Jamestown Villas 09/11/09 complaint below.


  1. This is an exert from the comment letter submitted to the Tuscaloosa City Planners and City Council members. As usual they were ignored. What the city has ignored is that each councilman has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the city from law suits. In this case, they have left themselves wide open for a citizen suit for non-compliance.

    If I lived downstream of this site, I would sue them all!

    From the comment letter.

    "9. Due to it's proximity to Hurricane Creek, extreme measures will have to be taken to assure the federal mandate to reduce pollutants expected with this project such as sedimentation and turbid discharges. Retention ponds will be difficult to install and maintain. The city has a responsibility to reduce the risk of further pollution through sensible planning. In our opinion this will not be feasible to adequately control. If annexed, the city should require minimum impact development techniques. The current slash, burn, and bury techniques will not work here and are a recipe for disaster.

    10. This contractor has an abysmal record of environmental non-compliance. FoHC and Hurricane Creekkeeper have been monitoring this contractor since Dec. 07. Hurricane Creekkeeper as well as the Alabama Dep. of Environmental Management have registered several complaints. There has never been a single day of compliance at this location, yet every building inspection was approved, and houses are now for sale that stayed in violation of state and federal laws during their entire construction phase. This poses another problem for us in the PJ. No fines or prosecution of these violations has taken place in the entire history of Tuscaloosa’s storm-water permit that can be found. Many times I have asked for that information from Joe Robinson, Chad Christian, and the mayor and they have all danced around the question without answering.
    A. If this annex takes place, no construction should commence until a bond-per-acre is placed on the entire increment. The bond should be sufficient to cover any cost incurred due to environmental non-compliance. In the event of project failure, the bond should be set high enough to totally reclaim the property and return it to a state of compliance.
    B. No annexation should be granted until this contractor proves total environmental compliance through inspection. This inspection should be carried out by city engineers and or ADEM and should include every site in Tuscaloosa that is under Burns Construction’s control.

    In closing I would like to point out that this is another example of people in the PJ being forced into compliance with the wishes of city leaders we have no voice in electing. We cannot vote for or against this development that will, essentially create an island of "city" property in the midst of our county neighborhood. If this annexation is approved it should at least include the entire area and connect all of 6th street within city limits.

    All of the residents should be given the right to say whether they want 90 new houses on their street. A street that in no way will facilitate this venture.

    With all due respect, we ask you to deny this annexation.

  2. These comments are directly from Mr. Chad Christian's response to our complaint about Jamestown Villas...
    "The main difference at Jamestown is phased construction. He is not going to grade the entire site at once which should help tremendously. I went out there today around 10 am and talked to Jimmy on site and observed some work. They do have silt fences up and appear to be preserving a large buffer along the creek. I pointed out that his permit was not conspicuously posted. He said you were welcome to come onto the site and call him, etc. and he seemed determined to do a good job on this site. I will make a special effort to visit the site as often as possible as well. I wish that a detention pond was not needed, because it disturbs a lot of area which could be open space otherwise – however the density necessitates it for the protection of the creek from peak flow increases and to help with water quality issues. The PUD issue and their associated density as a whole will be tackled this summer as John and OPED staff begin to look at the subdivision regulations with input from the OCE and all stakeholders."

    Mr. Christian,
    Would you explain what happened?


Feel free to leave a comment. No profanity! No personal attacks please.