So our meeting is today. Land Use Lawyer has been decent about giving us an idea of what we'll be dealing with, but it wasn't exactly a week:
Well right now I am still in the research/review mode. I am looking at the National flood Insurance requirements to see if they also make access a condition of the flood boundary. Once I answer my own questions, I will craft a response. By the way, I had a general flood boundary conversation with John Friedman -- essentially about how the Nat. Flood Insurance program fits into Fairfax County. I told him I would be having a case come up in Fairfax, but did not tell him anything about it. Got some insight into his thought process.
and more...
The county has flood regulations because the national flood insurance act requires it. therefore, the county should use the grounds of the the NFIA (I think this is what it is called. at any rate, it's close.) in its interpretation of the law. Our attorney has worked on flood issues for many years, and know that it is not the intent of the NFIA to prevent people from building on lots that can be marooned, simply that there is some form of protection. Her stance, then, will be that the county is being overzealous in its enforcement and not abiding by the intent of the law. she also plans on pointing out that the county already determined how strict it would be when it approved stonecrest and the Dyer's lot. they have already set a precedent and should stick by it.
"Our Nextdoor Neighbor" is coming with us. We'll let you know how it goes...
