Our (mostly Laurel's) appeal of the Nielsen lot partitioning in Spring Lake Estates continues to take its twists and turns, but the road is inexorably coming closer to its end. Some time back Laurel testified at a hearing where Denny Nielsen and his hydrologist-for-hire, Nick Coffey, presented their (weak) case for overruling the Hearing Officer's initial denial of the lot partitioning. The Marion County Commissioners decided to remand the decision back to the Hearings Officer, so several issues were revisited, such as the number and cause of well deepenings/replacements in the area, and the rate at which groundwater is being recharged from rainfall--given the geology around here.
After the hearing, Laurel wrote up her response to Coffey's grasping-at-straws arguments, with a little help from me. Then Coffey and Nielsen got to have the last word, they being the applicants and having the burden of proof. Yesterday Laurel went to pick up a copy of what they turned in to the Hearings Officer, and was surprised to find that she is being accused of practicing geology without a license. Actually, we consider this Coffey complaint to be a pretty nice compliment, since it shows that she is competent enough in hydrogeology matters to be confused with a real geologist.
It's amazing what desperate lot partitioners will do when they don't have any factual legs to stand on. Coffey couldn't refute Laurel's facts, so he had to try to deny her right to say them. That's pathetic. If anybody shouldn't be practicing geology, it is Nick Coffey--a point that Laurel wasn't shy about making at the hearing. Stay tuned for the next episode in this hydrogeology soap opera, which we hope is a continued denial of the partitioning.
I wish I had taken more seriously the negative things said about NICK COFFEY! If I could, I'd give him negative stars. He has been a nightmare to work with. We hired him to do a wetland delineation report and it took eight months to get 2 pages of narration and a bunch of references. He also charged us 2 1/2 times more than he said he would. He called a run-off from irrigation to be wetland. Also called a swale that was covered up 70 years ago, wetland that shouldn't be built on. He also made me take pictures of the land and send it to him along with me ordering historical photos for him. Then he promised that the report was done and he'd send it next week. That took4 months of, it's hot and we're at the beach, My wife is sick, the printer won't work, can't email it, how should I send it, it's being reviewed for grammar and spelling, etc.! The report is a farce and he obviously has ulterior motives. I wouldn't recommend him to my worst enemy!!
Posted by: Celeste Velez Wilson | August 13, 2021 at 01:50 PM