Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom MacWood (Guest) on October 31, 2002, 04:50:28 AM
-
I don't quite understand what golf architects go through with environmental restrictions and a like. When designing and building a golf course when, how and by whom do they get approval. At what point does it occur in the process? Do other organizations - other than evironmental - have to approve what is being built. For example are there building inspectors for golf courses to make sure it is within code or soundly constructed?
If a golf course already exists, say you are completely redesigning on top of an existing golf course, are you immune from the process?
-
Tom,
When we are approached with a potential project we ask the client to first have the propoerty surveyed (usually they don't and think the plat is the survey) and to get a wetlands delineation done. The delineation can be done by firms that perform such services but it must be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. This will tell the client and us just how much land is available to build on. The project we did for the city of Concord (NC) for Rocky River was approx. 325 acres. We managed to design the course on the 171 that was not wetlands.
An engineering firm will then provide an erosion/sedimentation control plan. This will show where all the sediment basins, ditching, silt fence and other measures are to be installed prior to the grubbing and earthmoving. These erosion controls are to be in place and maintained until a proper ground cover is established. The erosion/sedimentation control plan must be approved on the state and federal level.
State environmental control agents will monitor the site from time to time to make sure you are in compliance. If not, they send a letter telling you where you need improvement and x number of days to comply. If you fail to comply in the alloted time they can shut the project down until the proper measures are in place.
As for remodels, it realy depends on the scope of work, how much and where you are moving dirt. On existing courses you probably aren't going to disturb anything that might be considered wetlands. You would still need the erosion control measures.
What makes this process particularly difficult and time consuming is that requirements vary from state to state and continue to change. We have had erosion control plans approved on the federal level but rejected by the state for whatever reason.
the actual permitting required would be if you were going to disturb or fill a wetland. Some states define wetlands that cannot be disturbed at all while others can be mitigated. In other words, we will fill an acre of wetlands here, but create an acre over there. Some wetlands are a 1to1 swop others may be 2-1, 3-1 etc.
In NC they are passing legislation that requires a 50 foot buffer along wetland areas, streams, ditches, etc. Where 20 feet cannot be disturbed at all and the next 30 feet can be cut or mitigated. Its getting more and more challenging.
Probably more information than you wanted :)
Rick
-
Tom,
In many instances your approvals for golf course construction, be it new course or some degree of re-design, does differ from your typical building construction (code enforcement) approval. In many parts of the US land development approvals are required from local municipal, county and or federal agencies. Where these types of approvals are required the timing can be effected a minimum of six to nine months. If changes to zoning (land use) are required I'd anticipate one year+. If these municipal or govermental bodies exercise their maximum time frames, per submittal/review, the process can seem tediously SLOW... If the golf course currently exists and a re-design is being considered it may only be necessary to gain local approval for engineering of stormwater control and an earth disturbance permit (erosion and sedimentation control) which requires plans to show the construction staging and the use of controls for limiting erosion during the construction period.
Now if you are talking about building structures on the golf course (clubhouse, maintenance facilities, pump house for irrigation, etc.) then there are building code reviews and inspections throughout the process of planning and construction. With new property development count on the land development approvals being nine months to one year.
-
Our Club is currently doing a new pump house and in addition to zoning issues, building permits, etc. We also have to work with and get approvals from the Local Conservation Commission.
The entire process is fairly lengthy and time-consuming.
Best
Dave
-
;D
If you're interested in EPA type approvals for storm water, go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/const.cfm to get started.
Then say Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program three times quickly, and contact your local state Environmental agency who will have an equivalent to the federal program.
The you get to the forms. They really aren't that tough, you have to make sure that you say what you'll do and do wht you say.. ;)
-
I was never involved in a course project into construction but the Ardrossan project probably got close enough for me to sniff what the permitting and approval process would be. I feel in the area we were looking at it would have been pretty severe.
Towards the latter stages (just before we called it off) Coore said we've gone far enough and now was the time to find out about water availability. So I started to look into that and could see enough to tell it might be a little complex with the beaurocracy and after they checked it off there would probably be a number of local complainants and local conservation entities who were going to have something to say about that.
In my area the local "township" structure is quite strong and can really complicate things depending on which township you're in.
The real problem with the Ardrossan project though wouldn't have been Ardrossan probably, it would have been Gulph Mill's course itself and trying to get rezoning to sell the real estate that is GMGC. That township (another one) told us preliminarily they would never allow us to rezone--basically telling us we would never be allowed to sell the course for anything other than what it is now!
In theory, I certainly question their ability to do that but the fact is another course in our township, Valley Forge, has been trying to get the township to allow them to rezone for the last 30 years and have to date been unsuccessful!
-
I realize that the requirements change from state to state, but can you still incorporate wetlands into your design. Perhaps skirting the wetlands or even playing over it? What is a stream or river considered?
Is having to get land use approval common? Are there any potential problems in using agricultural land?
-
Tom:
I think land use approval would run to zoning issues. I would think if wanting to use agriculture land for a golf course you probably would need to get a variance for a non-conforming use.
Best,
Dave
-
Zoning approval from local authorities
Grading permit from state
Stormwater discharge permit from state
Erosion control plan approved by state
If there is a river or stream (navigatable water) on the property, usually you cannot fill in the "floodplain" of that water to the 100 yr storm level unless you offer compesatory water storage.
Wetlands should not be problem incorporating provided you do not plan to fill them and can demonstrate that your activity will not harm them.
The zoning permit is the best one to start with. If there is strong opposition on the local level, it is best to address that first as it costs the least and has the most influence over whether you can proceed. Sometimes the local zoning board may tell you to get your other permits in line first though.
-
In what situation would you not get zoning or land use approval? I would think that would be pretty rare.
Can you alter the wetlands, for example can you expand the perimeter of the wetlands, creating more wetlands or an adjoining pond?
What is the purpose of the grading plan approval? What is the state looking for, or guarding against, when reviewing a grading plan?
-
Tom,
You can create or enlarge a wetland area as in the mitigation scenario I mentioned above. The grading plans are for sedimentation and erosion control. They (whomever they are) want to make sure that you are not letting silt and sediment run off into the wetland or stream if it rains during construction. This delineation tells you where you can and cannot move dirt. The main point is you can't fill a wetland.
If dirt slides into the wetland, that's fill. If dirt falls off a trackhoe into a wetland, that's fill. If you try to pull a stump out of a wetland and dirt falls off the root ball, that's fill.
What makes you crazy is that just yesterday I heard a contradiction to one of the "rules" that supposedly had just been passed. That being you can create a pond in a wetland.
This goes against everything we've heard and operated on in the past. I'm checking this out. But here's the kicker, you can get different answers from different people within the beaucracy.
-
Tom MacWood,
The process is substantive, and expands as the scope of the work expands.
The process is also complicated by multi-jurisdictional agencies.
As an example, I wanted to shift a dead end canal by fifteen yards, for about 200+ feet. I had to deal with five (5) agencies.
Army Corps of Engineers
South Florida Water Management
Lake Worth Water Management
Palm Beach County DEP
Florida DEP
And, they were not always on the same page or in total agreement.
To clear shrubery/brush/trees it was more of the same with vegetation clearing permits required.
Almost every item requires some sort of permit, sometimes overseen by multiple agencies.
An important lesson is to put the "required permits"
obligation in the GC's contract, such that the club shifts responsibility.
I also hired the former Chief Counsel for the Florida Department of Environmental Resources to, amongst other things, help guide us through the permiting maze.
The process can drive up costs, alter and even freeze a project. Today, I believe that you can hire a firm to interface with all of the regulatory agencies and obtain all of the permits, but that adds to the cost of a project.
Each agency usually has inspectors to review on an ongoing basis, and sign off on the finished permited work.
You also have to get a little lucky with the personalities involved.
Lastly, certain environments are more hostile than others
-
Pat,
Lucky with the personalities is right! We had one individual reject a erosion control/sedimentation plan. That meant another 30 day process. The engineering firm made the appropriate changes and resubmitted. Rejected again. Why?
the individual said that they didn't see them. Back into the 30 more days stack. After a few phone calls to higher-ups we finally get permission to proceed. It's not the laws necessarily, it's the buearacracy.
-
As a land development engineer I deal with the permitting and design process every single day. As a matter of fact I am right now taking a little break from designing an erosion, sedimentation & pollution control plan (ESPC for short) for a land disturbance permit (LDP) for one of our new developments.
So far what I have read sounds pretty much like how it works here in Georgia. For a given development we have to produce various plans to be granted a LDP. These documents include a general layout plan, a grading plan, road profiles (not applicable for a golf course), utility plans (also not applicable), ESPC for post-grubbing, ESPC for post-grading, ESPC Details, Drainage delineation plans, storm sewer plans and profiles, sewer plans and profiles (probably not applicable), the various pertinant construction detail associated to the plans and a comprehensive stormwater management report.
Most of the plans are reviewed by the local municipality. Anything above and beyond (exceptions to their regulations or abnormal circumstances) are referred to a higher governing agency. ESPC plans are reviewed and approved by the municipalities per regulations set by the Georgia State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Any development over, around, or near state or national waters usually ends up having to get through FEMA and/or USACOE approval and of course wetlands or any other sensitive site (or contaminated site) will bring in the state EPD and possibly the Federal EPA. Any development around state waters will probably involve local and/or state buffers, and quite possibly a flood study to indicate 100 year floodplain encroachment and/or HEC study to ensure up and downstream flood level alterations.
The time involved in the development process can be very lengthy and we often struggle with the slow critical path of development permitting versus the demands of the client. And, of course as metioned above, you do all this work and if the review agency doesn't like your design it gets bounced back to you and you have to start the submittal process over ::)
It is really amazing how much one learns with every project because no development is ever the same and no municipality or government agency carries the regualations as another.
Keith.
-
I'm going to be more blunt. As the engineering professionals, and people that have participated or been near projects have stated above, it is a labyrinth of town, local, state and federal bureaus and bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are in many cases both arbitrary and in some instances downright crooked in the administration of these regulations.
I once attended a seminar in one part of our state not in my region, with DNR regulators who discussed state rules for digging ponds and other issues near navigable streams. (any water course that flows even for a short period in the year due to melting or runoff is navigable). The rule in our state is that said ponds within the designated flood plains (10, 20, 50 or 100 year events) or within 500 feet of navigable stream need to be permitted and are subject to public hearing. The next month, work was commenced on a project in my local area with no public notice, no formal approval process, just a "field adjustment" :-/ That project dug two significant ponds (less than 20-30ft from a fully navigable stream) and filled a flood plain for about 20 acres, 8 ft above the original surface. Said flood plain is a choke point for a watershed of 1000s of acres and had several serious flood events over last several years. No public notice, no hearings, just the local region regulator's coming out for an eyeball, "field adjustment". Then the corps of engineers somehow passed on construction within another 24 acres of designated wetlands, without requiring mitigation provisions, nor posted any hearings, etc. This same ring of bureaucrats had told others planning far less invasive disturbance into far less significant and questionably defined flood plains that they should forget their ideas, they will never be allowed to occur.
In my humble opinion, all the local, state, and federal agencies are a license to steal for those that arbitrarily and capriciously administer them. If they aren't corrupt in a graft sense, they are drunk on arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers they have within their little fifedoms. I'm sure there are many who work in those various agencies that have nothing but the public good and sound environmental practices as their goal and ethic. But, I think there is a very dark side to all of this too... :( >:(
-
The approval process is capricious at best. We just breezed through a large portion of environmental approvals on a project that will be clearing old-growth pine forest, filling wetlands, and clearing forest along two trout streams.
Just down the road another course was delayed for a few years eventhough they were proposing fewer impacts.
-
Tom MacWood:
Just a few anecdotes:
Fazio's Pelican Hill project apparently took 30 years. The first 28 years were to get all the necessary permits.
The Talmadge family have been working on the Frair's Head case for about 15 years. If I recall correctly, I think Bill told me the legal bills were already in the range of what it cost to construct Pacific Dunes.
Europe is moving to a requirement that EU authorites in Brussels have to sign off in addition to the various local and individual countries' sign off.
At Atlantic City Country Club, Tom Doak actually created additional wetlands with his re-design, something that went over well with the powers that be.
Sand Ridge is a clear example of how restrictions due to wetlands can significantly impact routing alternatives.
-
Tom MacW:
Would you mind clicking on your first post and then the modify button and changing this thread's title from the APPORVAL process?
That spelling error is driving Dan Kelly crazy!
-
Tom MacWood,
If you read the angst in the responses of those who have been through the process, I think you begin to get an understanding and an appreciation of the difficulty this process poses and the determination to overcome the perils it presents.
As others have said, the capriciousness, the arbitrary and illogical applications and the personality/powertrip clashes are incredibly frustrating for any well intentioned individual to endure.
Those old dead guys would have died a lot sooner had they had to deal with these issues.
-
It sounds like architects, builders and developers face the same regulatory and approval process, perhaps even more so. Don't some localities require the actual architectural plan be approved by a board so that it meets some local aesthetic stipulation? And don't architects face stringent requirements when working with historical buildings or in historical neighborhoods? Not to mention the structure meeting the building code requirements.
When did all these requirements and environmental regulations first go into effect?
-
Tom MacW:
They started going into effect bigtime about 30+ years ago.
Some architects like Coore and Crenshaw are hesitant to get into projects that pin them down with every possible form of pre-planning, drawings, permitting etc. They feel that kind of thing unnecessarily pins them down and restricts their latitude to interpret their architecture on the ground.
But projects like that seem to be what an operation like Fazio's is really good at! I think he welcomes the challenge to solve problems that way (he's certainly said so) and certainly none of us can deny he's very, very good at it!!
Matter of fact, amazingly, in some cases, Fazio has said to regulatory entities; "Not only am I NOT going to hurt your wetlands and protected areas, I'm going to make them even better than they ever were before I got here", and even more amazingly he's probably done exactly that!
-
Tom,
Our experience with governmental personell is always cordial and professional. They know the rules, and have an obligation to follow them. There is not a lot of room for interpretation.
The time consuming part of the permit process is citizens raising "red herring" issues. We must often spend time "proving a negative" as in, "How can you tell me your golf course pesticides won't kill my dog?" They usually ask for "more studies", which delay the project. The local board approving the project are elected, but are just regular folks too, and are often inclined to make a developer do one more study, if requested by their constituents.
Objections are often sincere, but avid environmentalists have a circulated list of tactics and issues to raise, so as often as not, the study requests come from (whether they actually voice the concern or not) an environmental activist group. When the known issues are already addressed, they find others, if they want the project stopped. Once, we went through hoops to preserve a plant that was not on any protected list, but was under consideration for future inclusion. So, by law, we were right, but if the developer wants the project to go quickly, he redesigns to work around the "important plant." I'm not sure that plant ever did make it to any protected list, and it is very common in the area around the course, five years after opening.
Golf Course development is a lot like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, as you never know what you are going to get.
-
If a golf course already exists, say you are completely redesigning on top of an existing golf course, are you immune from the process?
Don't really want to address the other issues, as it turns my stomach, but as far as this one goes, I think Golf Digest had a short writeup a few months ago about a course in RI or CT that was completely redone on top of an old course & they stated that if the land hadn't already been a golf course, it never would've been approved for golf use.
So it shouldn't be as tough if we decide to improve Cypress from the best 17 hole course in the world to the best 18 hole course!! :)
-
We recently completed a renovation, and tree clearing ordinances and compensatory storage, and erosion control requirements were in place, as if a new development.
-
George Pazin,
It doesn't matter if a golf course already exists and you want to do work on it. There is no grandfather or safe harbor clause, and the permiting process is active.
-
;)
A view from 23 years experience in environmental regulatory matters (on both sides of the fence):
In an uncertain world, the regulator faces the classical statistical error type problems: Type I, rejecting something they should accept and Type II, accepting something they should reject. They never want to make the Type II error, and thus ask for more information or stall making a decision. If all regulatory/technical issues are met, they can't make the Type I error, otherwise they are truly arbitrary and capricious (though those terms are thrown out pretty easily by proponents) and will loose a legal challenge. They're between a rock and a hard place.
So, how are difficult approvals acccomplished? It is typically done by a lot of footwork, homework, taking the regulatory and technical high roads, pro-active sharing of information with all stakeholders and the development of the old "win-win" situation. One has to give the regulator every reason to make a justifiable decision and no reason to accept the inevitable political detractor's position as anything but that.
Examples
1. You have pre-application meetings with all regulatory and public stakeholders, so all (or as many as possible) of the stakeholders hear the same thing and understand the project scope. You put out minutes of meetings to all to confirm what was heard and said. You are creating a record.
2. You identify with the regulatory bosses who is responsible and what the expected time tables are for regulatory approvals by law, policy, or practical considerations (their backlog) after your expected application submittal date. You keep them aware of your timetable and keep tabs on their activities too.
3. You walk through both the draft and final applications with the reviewers in person. You show them the organization and where everything is to be found. You bring them up the learning curve, reinforcing that its all there.
4. If you've got a proposed approval, you don't allow the classic 30 day public comment period on a proposed action to end, hoping that no one will request a public hearing that would necessitate another 30 days notice. You request the agency schedule a public hearing concurrently with their initial public notice. You get all the proponents to schedule to speak at the public hearing or submit written comments in support of the project noting (new revenue, employment, etc.. improved conditions etc..) to force the record forward.
Yes it can be complicated, yes it will increase costs, but this front end loading approach gets the job done by co-opting uncertainty.
-
Steve Lang,
That seems like a nice orderly process, if you were controlling it, but often times other individuals and forces controll the process, and you're the one who ends up jumping through the hoops.
Some jurisdictions are easier to work with than others.
Some agencies are easier to work with than others.
Location and luck can play a critical part.
-
Pat Mucci,
I don't disagree that dis-order and luck can prevail and likely does in many approval processes and locations for golf course and other developments. Situations where every regulator thinks they're "in control" seems like total chaos and anarchy.
I think any proponent is fooling themselves if they don't get some professional help in these matters, someone to focus on, build, and follow the master schedule and drive a project down its "critical path." Work done out of sequence is likely to get reworked, impact the project budget and if its then additional regulatory or financial gatekeepers holding back a project ,then their concerns should have been recognized and dealt with in the project execution planning.
In my work, I'm usually on the critical path at the very beginning of projects and the very end. These are stressful periods and we do everything proactively possible that we can to quickly get off the critical path and meet schedule.
I think its the proponent's (or his agent's) responsibility to be in control of the approval processes.
-
If you are redesigning an old green complex that lies withing the 100 year flood plain, is it possible the agency will force you to move it? The same with a green adjacent to wetlands? I would think that green would be grandfathered and those conducted the work would simply take extra precautions.
Are there cases where clubs have to go to a local architectural board for approval? For example everything that is constructed in the community of Muirfield Village - from a jungle gym to mailbox - has to be approved. There are similar regulations in historical neighborhoods like Nantucket; are there cases where altering a historical golf course, like say a Sankaty Head, would also have to approved by the local architectural board? Should changes to historical golf courses be subject to approval, just like historical buildings?
-
Angst is the right word here. I actually avoided the topic in two visits here, and could not bring myself to read the details of all the case studies presented.
Generally I would agree with Jeff Brauer that the regulations aren't difficult to anticipate in most cases, and are much easier to deal with if you don't try to push the envelope. However, as I'm surprised Pat Mucci has not mentioned here, there is a third party involved ... and your CLIENT would frequently love for you to push the envelope of wetlands, if it means that he might have more land left over to develop for housing at a later date.
Like Bill Coore, I tend to avoid projects which will require a lot of pre-approval, if I think we'll wind up trying to build the course with both hands tied behind my back. (The 18th hole at High Pointe was a good early lesson for me on that subject.) However, Lost Dunes and Riverfront and Beechtree and Atlantic City all had substantive permitting issues, and we managed to get through all of them with a minimum of headache ... although our clients had to pay a lot more for environmental engineering than they originally expected.
-
Steve Lang,
I'm in complete agreement that hiring a professional to steer the project through the permiting process is a prudent decision.
Tom Doak,
I forgot. But, you're right, sometimes the directions or mandates from the owner bring you into contact and conflict with agencies you would have and could have avoided.
Tom MacWood,
Prior to undertaking a project that might be fraught with permiting peril, research, one of your favorite topics, should be embarked upon, extensively, and with the help of consulting, PAID PROFESSIONALS.
Each location has its unique issues, and it's better to uncover them prior to starting a project, rather than getting hit with them unexpectedly, in the middle of your project, when they may have you over a barrel and at their mercy.
And... unexpected requirements/mandates may cost substantial dollars to comply with, that just might not be in the budget or contingency fund, causing the project to stop in its tracks until funding can be arranged.
I find it doubtful, that most classic courses that the group tends to admire, could be built in their present form today.
Modern day architects have a far more difficult task when attempting to design and build a golf course today, and should get credit and appreciation for their accomplishments in today's far more hostile environment.
-
Pat
I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment - each era has their challenges. The old guys had their limitations and difficulties. There are an equal number of golf courses built today that couldn't have been built back then.
-
Tom MacW:
I don't know the answer exactly to your question of redesigning a green, for instance, that has been in a hundred year flood plan for years and whether it's grandfathered. Personally, I could not imagine why not!
But if it was me I'd just not say anything to any regulatory agency or entity and do it and if they questioned it (and I can't imagine they'd even be aware of it) I would just say--"restoration"!
-
As Steve and Jeff B. have talked about, the regulators are people interpretting rules. Sometimes it's just as effective to suck up and kiss a little ass as it is to follow the rules.
-
TEPaul,
I like your thinking, unfortunately, those of us on GCA will only be able to visit you on rainy saturdays and sundays, and I understand, no more than four visitors a day are permited,
A home owner with property on a hole at a club in Florida that I'm familiar with, filled in a portion of a waterway adjacent to his property. He was arrested, and led away in handcuffs.
This is no longer a casual issue. But, a lot still rests with the attitude and/or flexibility of the jurisdiction where the work is being done. Some are more reasonable than others.
Tom MacWood,
I'm quite confident that many great courses could never be built in today's hostile environmental environment.
Let's just start with Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Maidstone, NGLA and Seminole.
The old guys certainly had adverse conditions to deal with, but nothing like the ABSOLUTE power of active government that could alter or prevent anything and everything about their projects, from routing to hole design.
These are far different times from just 30-40 years ago, let alone 80.
-
Pat
Interesting conjecture. Don't you think there are an equal number of modern course wouldn't have been built back then?
Some of those courses were remodeled recently. Due to prior transgressions, is it your professional opinion that they were in jeopardy of being told by the current agenices to move the offending features? Or are there some exceptions to your no grandfathering rule?
-
Pat:
When I answered Tom MacW's question I wasn't exactly thinking of some homeowner in Florida filling in a section of a waterway. I was thinking more along the lines of redesigning (not moving mind you) a green at something like Gulph Mills that might be in a 100 year flood plan as it's been for 80 years!
I don't see the need to request permission from some regulatory body for that or even any reason to tell them about it. We're doing a restoration of GMGC right now and I'm sure not aware of us having to get permission to do it--except from the members, of course!
-
Tom:
You have to know perfectly well that just because there are certain things that could be done back then that can't be done today that no agency is going to tell some golf course to change things, features, whatever, that wouldn't be allowed to be built in this day and age! Those kinds of things are almost never retrogressive!
-
TE
I didn't know for certain what the answer might be and that is why asked the question. Pat's answer about a dozen posts back was there was no safe harbor or grandfather clause!
Pat
Do you know if the new 5th at Pebble Beach required approval?
-
Tom MacWood,
If you would provide the specific examples that you referenced, I would be happy to render my professional opinion, related to those specific examples, of course.
But, I don't think that's necessary, common sense should provide the answers you seek. Absent that, I'll do my best to answer the questions for you..
Having had to deal with regulatory agencies on a few occassions, I stand by my statement relative to the old guys and the obstacles caused by the modern permiting process.
With regard to Pebble Beach, I would be amazed if the California Coastal Commission, and many other regulatory agencies weren't involved in the permiting process for the new 5th hole.
In Florida, nothing we did was grandfathered,
and once we started clearing some small areas of vegatation that had grown in over the last twenty years, we were mandated to clear ALL pepper trees, maleuca trees and australian pine trees from the property.
Acres and Acres of trees had to be cleared.
Then those trees had to be reduced to mulch because we were prohibited from burning them.
Then we had to dispose of them.
Then we had to grass the areas where they previously existed,
Then we had to run new irrigation lines throughout those newly grassed areas.
Seeking that simple little vegatation clearing permit, to do some rather minor clearing, ended up costing us in excess of
$ 600,000 initially, with additional, substantial costs into the future.
As I stated to you, each site, each relationship with the jurisdictional agencies is unique.
Tom Doak may have had a blissful, hand in glove, relationship with the various jurisdictional agencies in Bandon, Oregon, but might have had an acrimonious, even hostile relationship had he attempted to build a golf course on a similar sight in Palm Beach, East Hampton or Malibu. Each site has its own unique situation, but overall, it's not a pleasant environment.
There is no romance in the permiting process.
Only ANGST !
-
Tom P: I seem to remember that when the club wanted to restore the third nine at Huntingdon Valley, some of the holes had to be delayed because the overgrown fairways were now considered "wetlands." I don't know how much those holes had to be changed from their original design as a result.
Pat M: Right you are, there's NO WAY we could have built Pacific Dunes in California. And I don't even know why, which is the most frustrating part of the process. Luckily, so far New Zealand is more reminiscent of Oregon than California.
-
Pat M: Right you are, there's NO WAY we could have built Pacific Dunes in California. And I don't even know why, which is the most frustrating part of the process.
I think we all know why, it's just really tough thinking of others that way. It's less painful to just think you don't know why people would act that way.
-
I LOVE THE APPROVAL PROCESS!!!!!. There is nothing better than sitting in meetings or in front of a city hall full of people trying to explain to them why a golf course is not equivalent to a strip mall.........what could be more fun!!!! Forget spending time designing great features.........the architects time is much better spent waiting 2.5 hours to be last on the wetland board agenda, only to have them insist on plantings that will never live, but thought would look really nice around the ponds.
Best question I ever heard during a permit meeting..........."will the golf balls hit into the pond be harmful to the fish if they decide to eat them?"...........I did not know how to answer that one.
-
Paul,
In Minnesota they worry the fish will get hit on the head.
-
It's funny, all the time I spent getting a project approved, probably 6-8 months, the permit fee (from the USACOE) was only $100 and they have not been out to the site in the last 2 1/2 years, the USACOE feels the municipalities will take care of the job themselves. It's also funny how from one conservation district or watershed to another, in the same state, the rules vary. What the heck, just when you thought you could read people well you were again dumbfounded. In the approvals worls nothing is cut and dry, it is the biggest grey or gray area out there!!