https://web.plaud.ai/s/pub_1273ebf3-7a33-47a7-9af9-6f67c0944b05::hB4Zw2nIvU8NrKic0nmxeADwI4djwmePW8zcRlO0XmikcCJELpZK1wd7_xpgpwm_k1dtVDY3-GSFD5MC520fac93925ac68a8aa4f7a5916e9022data_file.trans_result array is the source of
the transcript below. The rendered page and the JSON agreed on segment
order, speaker labels, and timestamps.content field without correction.
Millisecond start/end values were only converted to
H:MM:SS.mmm display format.| Plaud label | Recoverable identity | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speaker 1 | Likely Murat | Speaker 4 says he is “with Marat”; Speaker 1 is the other sustained participant after the outside caller leaves. No clean direct self-identification occurs. | Medium |
| Speaker 2 | Unresolved / possible diarization overlap | Brief opening utterance, a one-word interjection, and part of an automated disconnected-number message are assigned to this label. | Low |
| Speaker 3 | Very likely Stephen | Speaker 1 says “Thank you Stephen for everything” immediately after Speaker 3 signs off. Speaker 4 also appears to address Stephen in the garbled introduction. At 10:50 Plaud instead renders “I’m sorry, Ed,” and at 17:31 Speaker 3 quotes his surveyor addressing him as “Ed”; those conflicts should be checked against the audio. | High, but spelling/name conflict remains |
| Speaker 4 | Very likely Kanti Bansal | The 02:50 self-introduction is garbled as “this is Conti by the way Stephen Conti,” but the conversational structure strongly supports “this is Kanti, by the way, Stephen”; Speaker 4 says he is with Marat and discusses “Shanti” and “our” project. | High inference, not direct clean text |
| Speaker 5 | Automated carrier recording | Content is a disconnected-number announcement. | High |
[0:00:26.300 - 0:00:29.120] Speaker 2: I Am fine, thank you. I am with my boss and.
[0:00:29.700 - 0:00:36.300] Speaker 1: You explained it before, but we just want to talk with you. Yeah, no worries. And I do apologize too,
[0:00:36.420 - 0:01:28.310] Speaker 3: Because I know some emails that I was going to forward over some of our back and forth and had just been kind of crazy with switching to a new system. So okay, so the question was about the elevations. So what’s real and what’s not over there at Area Five One? And we found out the hardware apparently like y’all did. The elevation that they show in this particular case shows is one thirty point oh, five or something. Um, ours is like one thirty point ninety six uh up the street. The reality is, Is that it’s actually right at three feet below and actually above what the true elevation is. Um, so as far as the GIS or where the geological survey goes, it’s the elevation is actually different. However, uh, The Woodlands.
[0:01:28.310 - 0:02:26.610] Speaker 3: Has done something where they claim to use monuments, And everything for the last I don’t know, forty years has been based off of these monuments, and they no longer exist. And I looked for them, my surveyor looked for them, and they literally just do not exist anymore. So we’re stuck using their number. And, they stipulated it in their paperwork that anything that is going there on the island. The elevations have to follow their, uh, you know, their monuments or their uh temporary benchmarks. And. So the only thing about it is, is that when they tell you that your your elevation has to be one thirty three point five for your finished floor, Uh that does actually put you at or above the five hundred year flood plain for Montgomery County. Uh just right at.
[0:02:26.730 - 0:02:49.650] Speaker 3: And so, uh, you know, we we argued with them about it. We went round and around. Our surveyor who’s also one of our engineers, uh, you know, had argued with them and and you know, they basically don’t care. They’re like, look, you can use our number or you can not build. Uh. So that’s kind of where we got.
[0:02:50.130 - 0:03:10.400] Speaker 4: Um Let me ask this is Conti by the way Stephen Conti. Yeah, how’s it going good. Good, good. Um, yeah, I’m I’m I’m with Marat and and I had a question about this whole thing. Um So do you think that they the elevations were correct at some point? And and basically the approach sunk a little bit?
[0:03:10.760 - 0:03:39.750] Speaker 3: I do not believe that they ever were correct. No. I think if they were, uh if they were, you know, at some point, somebody thought they were correct. It was based on a system that was so old. The, you know, their calculation could have been that far off. Like I am talking about back from the early nineteen twenties and uh back when before everybody was using satellites, or you know anything special. Uh let’s say uh I don’t think they were ever correct.
[0:03:40.170 - 0:03:41.910] Speaker 4: Does he really know that they’re not correct?
[0:03:42.570 - 0:04:15.920] Speaker 3: Uh I think everybody on the island pretty much knows that they’re not correct because they probably had similar things where people tried to find uh the monuments that they did. That don’t exist, you know. So I think that that’s been a question for a lot of the people from day one. And the Woodlands just doesn’t care. Well, so the Woodlands, unfortunately being a large corporation, you know they don’t care. They stipulate what they say? And if you build on there, then you’ve accepted it.
[0:04:16.160 - 0:04:23.190] Speaker 4: Got it? Isn’t this a Woodlands condition not an HOA condition? It’s a woodlands overlay, yeah. So the original survey,
[0:04:23.910 - 0:05:15.430] Speaker 3: And that’s part of the paperwork that y’all may have copies of. So the original layout for the woodlands and east fair for anything was all based on these monuments, And one of them is up there by Hughes Landing, or it was supposed to be up there by Hughes Landing, and that’s been gone you know for at least, You know, Five or seven years since uh before they uh at least since the time when they they widened Hughes Landing and built all of that. I I don’t know how long ago that was. It could have been twenty years ago. I don’t know. Um, The other monument was up at the front of the property. Uh, that was right there by the gate. Um so and that’s gone and I don’t know if they built a gate over it or what. But uh, it’s no longer there.
[0:05:15.710 - 0:05:38.030] Speaker 3: And. So that’s why my surveyors started going around and they went out to Colorado to try to find the nearest monuments. So they found three monuments, uh, they were all uh you know uh geological survey monuments. Andum you know based on all three of those, they were you know they were way off. So that’s how we found out.
[0:05:39.170 - 0:05:41.450] Speaker 4: That’s how we. Even the monuments themselves are off?
[0:05:42.170 - 0:06:14.960] Speaker 3: They’re declared uh well like I said so the two. They said that they had uh the one there at the beginning of the island when you come uh, right before you get to the bridge at the gate, the bend gate. Uh and and that’s no longer there. Uh and then the one down at Hughes Landing in Grogan’s Mill, uh it’s no longer there. They have a big uh uh traffic light sitting on top of where that monument was supposed to be. So um that’s why yeah when he went and according to what their monument said, all of this.
[0:06:14.960 - 0:07:11.160] Speaker 3: Was, uh, you know, the ones that are actually geological survey. Those were feeling that that their elevations were off. So for instance, ours at our end of the street says one thirty point ninety six. Uh, you know at the far end of area L where we’re working right now. And, the reality was it was actually and I say three feet, but it was like two point ninety eight or something, you know, um feet difference. And it was actually, you know, one twenty seven. Uh, you know, let’s say one twenty seven ninety eight, not one thirty ninety six. So that’s how all that came about. Because when we started going through to try to get our elevation certificate, uh the Woodlands, You know, when you submit all this before you pour concrete. Uh, you know they won’t accept it. They will not accept ours. And then, of course, if you have something showing too low Montgomery County won’t accept it either. They’re going to make you build differently because you’re in a flood plain.
[0:07:11.160 - 0:08:08.910] Speaker 3: And which also says that you are going to be in, you know, the one hundred year floodplain. Let’s say, and so that’s the other part about it. We ended up having to get a separate surveyor and told them to use the monuments that were out there with the temporary benchmarks. And, so as far as the county is concerned or insurance or anybody else that’s concerned, you know they’re showing that one thirty three point five is going to be You know, the minimum finished floor. And again, The only saving grace for the woodlands and the reason they can get around and be like, “Oh well, you know it’s whatever you want to call it subsidence or you know whatever. Who cares? It doesn’t matter. They’ve been doing it for so long.” You know, uh they just don’t care. And, so it does still put them above the five or at or above the five hundred year floodplain. So technically they’re not putting you in harm’s way. You know.
[0:08:08.910 - 0:08:42.220] Speaker 3: You know what I’m saying? So that’s, I think, how they’re getting around it. And and I think again, because they got such deep pockets being, you know the you know the Hughes Foundation or whoever it is that, that actually runs all of that, they you know pardon my expression, they just don’t give a shit. You know? I mean, they flat out told us if you don’t want to build cellular. And I mean. They told us that. We sat in a meeting going over this with my surveyor and my engineer. You know, arguing with them till he was blue in the face, and they’re like,” Whatever.
[0:08:42.520 - 0:08:52.360] Speaker 4: We don’t care.” So let me ask you this: Is it the Woodlands? Is it the Woodlands Foundation, meaning meaning the Woodlands, all the woodlands area or just this development?
[0:08:53.680 - 0:09:11.240] Speaker 3: Honestly, I believe that most of The Woodlands is going to fall under the same stuff. I think a lot of these areas were in floodplains or lower elevations than what they they had, originally said. And they just tried to sell property. That’s what I think. I can’t promise that, but that’s what I believe.
[0:09:11.480 - 0:09:13.820] Speaker 4: And then the insurance companies, do they fall in line as well?
[0:09:14.480 - 0:09:33.020] Speaker 3: Um, yeah. I mean again because it’s it’s in, it’s on the uh you know, it’s on the uh certificate, your elevation certificate. It started with the county, you know. And if a surveyor put that in there, they’re basing it off of the woodland stuff. So they’re all clear, you know. And so so.
[0:09:33.140 - 0:09:42.540] Speaker 4: When a surveyor comes for instance, from an insurance company. I just tell them,” Look, use these markers as as.
[0:09:43.560 - 0:10:33.970] Speaker 3: If an insurance company surveyor comes in. If they saw that it was below the five hundred year floodplain, then they would do something.” And that’s what I was saying; that’s their saving grace. So because anything beyond that, The only thing that the insurance companies are concerned with is basically between one hundred and five hundred year floodplains. So that’s their saving grace. That’s what I was talking about earlier. That’s how they get away with it. So, I see. I don’t know that anything’s happened yet. Uh, I’m sure in many areas of the woodlands that it has. Um, you know, I don’t know what happened with the, you know the flood because they tried to argue with us too, saying that Hughes Landing never flooded and I know for a fact that it did. You know one of the restaurants we went over there and shot elevations at, uh for sure was underwater.
[0:10:50.040 - 0:10:56.040] Speaker 4: I’m Sorry. I gotta go over there with that. It’s fine. I’m sorry, Ed.
[0:10:56.520 - 0:11:26.320] Speaker 3: No, right now I’m going. Yeah. Oh, um. Okay. Alright. Sorry about that. My guys are calling me from the back. Um, so for that, I would say no, not necessarily because again you’re at or above the five hundred year. So if you go with the one thirty three point five like they designated, then that’s the five hundred year floodplain basically over there. Because reality is is it’s one thirty point five. Soum, you see what I’m saying?
[0:11:27.520 - 0:11:30.220] Speaker 4: Are all the houses on the island basically one thirty three point five?
[0:11:30.820 - 0:11:34.600] Speaker 3: Yeah they have to be that’s their stipulation. And that’s why I think they did that.
[0:11:35.260 - 0:11:48.880] Speaker 4: I see, And then our our land guyum I don’t know how familiar you are with our specific project, but our land guy we’re using K G W. Does he know to follow that sort of line?
[0:11:49.480 - 0:12:03.340] Speaker 3: The guy that I spoke to was from Keystone. Yes, Keystone. Okay, okay. All right. So uh yeah, all right, I didn’t realize that they had a different designation or something. But anyway, I did talk to him. And I did explain to him as well. Yes.
[0:12:03.760 - 0:12:08.680] Speaker 4: Okay, and he’s cool following it, and we shouldn’t have any trouble with our build.
[0:12:09.700 - 0:13:01.120] Speaker 3: Uh, you said no. Like I said, if you do now, if I were you, I mean what we’re doing over at our end. I don’t know how much you know about our project, but we actually we’ve got a crawl space we’re building. We’ve elevated up where actually going to their height is actually one thirty six point, uh, eight, five That’s. What we’re building to for the first floor. Um. And uh, you know, we’re well above. Uh, we’re well above. I think the people next to us are building at one thirty s. And uh switching over to my uh vehicle. Can you hear me okay? I hear you. Okay, uh don’t worry about that. So, again, if you follow their instructions and build a one thirty three point five, and you won’t have the five hundred year flood plain according to Montgomery County. Uh and as soon as.
[0:13:01.520 - 0:13:59.390] Speaker 3: The mayor’s office, I believe, because we just went through that. Our survey said, Uh you know, according to them. Uh, that’s why we had to have our showing um at uh I think our sub uh sub plan showing at one thirty point five. And. So it actually put us right in the sweet spot of Montgomery County as allowing us to do it without going through a bunch of. Other stuff to mitigate for being in a flood zone. Um, you know, so our current elevation is you know at that point. And then in reality, Uh once we finish this floor, we’ll actually be at a true elevation of one thirty, three point eighty five, uh which is about you know, three point fifteen above the five hundred year. So um I would recommend that if you can.
[0:13:59.900 - 0:14:11.420] Speaker 3: To bring your elevation up to at least, you know, let’s say one thirty four point five. And that’ll put you a foot above the actual five hundred foot, uh, five hundred year flood plain.
[0:14:11.960 - 0:14:23.540] Speaker 4: How would we how would we go about doing that? Would we have to talk to structural? Who would we speak to about that? Um, I mean basically if you spoke to structural, I guess the big thing would be,
[0:14:23.900 - 0:14:59.310] Speaker 3: You know what do they have to say and if they’ve got you in, you know and I’m just going to make up a number let’s say, And they’ve got you going in with your beams two feet into, you know, into existing soil. Uh and then, you know, another, you know uh foot above from your top of your slab or whatever. So let’s say your beams are, you know three feet uh. You know and they’re gonna want you to be two feet into existing soil. So basically, you would just have to get their okay to come up and go. You know either. You know one foot into existing soil, or you would have to increase your beam height or something. Something along those lines.
[0:14:59.430 - 0:15:06.270] Speaker 3: You know, but you would have to go through that. Uh, you know the additional uh, you know the additional.
[0:15:07.170 - 0:15:17.910] Speaker 4: What does that involve? Does that involve resubmitting plans to the city HOA? Or do you just do it? And and Montgomery County.
[0:15:18.210 - 0:15:59.690] Speaker 3: Is going to be submitting plans too. Uh, I wish you should have already submitted them. I guess, okay. So and and they’re pretty easy. Uh, they’re going to require elevations. Uh, their plans, you know, they’re it doesn’t really matter. You, can you know, just go ahead and you know, have a change if you want to file for the extra items. They don’t care. Um, The ones that probably you know, work more than anything is is the uh, you know, Jim Edgerton uh, sending over to him, and he basically covers everything, You know, all the architectural uh standards and really for everything, honestly, structural uh, you know everything.
[0:16:01.450 - 0:16:30.960] Speaker 3: So, it would be a matter of telling him, “Hey, look, We want to increase our, you know, our uh uh, you know, foundation height to, you know, from and again, I don’t know what the number is, but some number, but let’s say it’s one thirty three point five. We want to increase our, you know, finished floor to one thirty four point five or whatever. You know and then he can’t deny you because everybody else. I mean, our next door neighbor for sure has got one thirty four. Uh plus. You know they might have a one forty.”
[0:16:31.690 - 0:17:14.990] Speaker 3: Or a or something uh based on their numbers. And uh you know, but uh you know ours at the end is one like I said, one thirty six eighty five. So, you can ask them all day long, and they’re just gonna be like everybody else is there, you know why not? So they can’t really say no. You know what I mean? So, the only other thing that would happen would be that, you know, just have to get the okay from the structural engineer. Uh it’s not going to change anything architecturally. Uh you know so, Structural engineer would just have to sign off on it and say,” Okay, yes, you can come up that additional foot.” Either you could make the beam shallower in the existing bay, Or they’re going to require you to add a little bit of extra concrete and another foot for all your beams.
[0:17:15.170 - 0:17:15.650] Speaker 2: Let’s say.
[0:17:17.390 - 0:17:22.910] Speaker 4: I see. Man it is it is quite the to do You know one keeping this fiction.
[0:17:31.580 - 0:18:12.680] Speaker 3: And it was my fault. I should have just left well enough alone, but I went out there and every time I start a job, I get the survey done. I check everything and I don’t go by what somebody else told me. And uh so that was when my surveyor who I’ve been using for years, had told me, “Ed, something’s wrong.” Uh. And so when we started looking into it, uh, you know because what their machine was reading versus what. What the uh you know what the the marker was saying, you know, it’s when it got them in question. And so as soon as they did that, you know, that’s when I told them look, you need to find out what’s going on.
[0:18:13.460 - 0:18:18.380] Speaker 4: Let me ask you. This are most of the houses on the island, one thirty three point five.
[0:18:19.580 - 0:18:28.220] Speaker 3: They have to be at least one thirty three point five I. See, That’s what that’s the stipulations in their uh uh in their paperwork.
[0:18:28.720 - 0:18:40.840] Speaker 4: I understand, but what I’m saying is, I’m saying is, are most people building to the minimum spec of one thirty three? I guess they have to, right? But how many people are building?
[0:18:41.860 - 0:19:28.320] Speaker 3: Um, I would say probably. uh. no, no. I would probably say half. Uh, I don’t think the people in the beginning knew. Um, I think. uh. Don’t think the first couple houses that are in there actually knew what was going on. Yeah. Um you know if there’s, Uh, something. Uh, you know, I’m I’m not sure. Uh. Um uh But I think that people now know. It’s just like we found you know, four feet of trash. Uh, ’cause we were doing cuttings for our our foundation, and we found four feet of trash or between three and five feet in areas of just debris that they covered up with three feet of uh select fill. Um and because of the.
[0:19:28.380 - 0:19:34.440] Speaker 3: Construction that we’re doing, we had to dig it all up and, you know, uh put in claims.
[0:19:34.800 - 0:19:42.180] Speaker 4: Yeah, I think your construction is all concrete construction. Am I right? Yeah. So it’s very heavy. Yeah,
[0:19:44.100 - 0:19:57.900] Speaker 4: Absolutely. Yours is heavier. But I don’t think our particular lot is that heavy. But but stillum so so the person that you would recommend going to either would be civil or or structural engineer?
[0:19:57.960 - 0:20:37.470] Speaker 3: You’re gonna talk to your structural engineer. Okay. Uh, yeah, so just touch base with them. Okay. And then, you know, Just tell them anyway, like I’m kind of concerned with because what they’re gonna do is they’re gonna look at your soil’s report, and they’re gonna base their foundation on that soil’s report. Um So yeah, Just tell your your structural guy that you know, hey, look, we’re a little concerned because this puts us right there. You know, even though the numbers are saying one thing, but the reality. Says that the true elevation is, you know, is X. And so it puts us right at the five hundred here. And we want to make sure that we’re, let’s say a foot above the five hundred here. Um, you know, as far as that goes.
[0:20:38.190 - 0:20:52.710] Speaker 4: Now I just said that our particular lot I don’t know how familiar you are with it, but Shanti got a variance for the third floor to make it the building a bit taller. Um if I if I put a foot on the bottomum if my.
[0:20:54.540 - 0:21:22.940] Speaker 3: It Could screw you up, um, forgetting that variance. And if that’s the case, is yeah, that uh I thought they had denied that originally, but uh I guess uh yeah, that’s what you’re definitely going to have to be careful about. Um Can you? I don’t know. I mean, if you don’t mind and did you You submitted something to Ken Anderson right, showing what your your architectural showing for finished floor and all that? I’m sure.
[0:21:23.600 - 0:21:29.000] Speaker 4: I think actually it was Igor’s team. It was your team that I sent it to. Yes,
[0:21:30.080 - 0:22:02.640] Speaker 3: Okay, all right. Let me go with Andre and see what he can tell me then and And because that’s one of the questions is we because we thought about that as well, you know, If uh we were to add some additional height to the house over here, who would know? But I think that they’re going to take a look and see, What the uh uh what the actual elevation is. I think that somebody’s got to check that. Otherwise, how would they know, you know? I would think that they’d have to check that. So.
[0:22:02.880 - 0:22:24.450] Speaker 4: Yeah, but that’s interesting, right? Like uh you know uh how exactly what checks do they do? The HOA. You know? And, it seems like it’d be pretty easy, because you know, they have a little optical thing. They just look and then just measure the angle. So, uh, I think height is a very easy thing to measure.
[0:22:24.990 - 0:22:32.430] Speaker 3: Yeah, that’s what I think as well. And I even didn’t think so. I was like,” Dude, these days it’s so simple.” But the other thing is.
[0:22:32.490 - 0:22:46.650] Speaker 4: If you’re raising it just by a foot, let’s say. Well, I mean that’s a very hard margin you know to uh. I mean what is the angle difference maybe? You know so I don’t know. All right well let me do this.
[0:22:46.770 - 0:23:20.310] Speaker 3: So no Anders is out of country right now, but I’ll reach out to him. From him until the morning. And just ask him to send me over. Uh I’ll tell him, we had this discussion. Uh as a matter of fact, you you got WhatsApp, right? Yes, I do. I may send over uh if you can, uh if uh Mark could send me your phone number or or if you don’t mind, then and then I can uh I’m in the WhatsApp group. I’m in the WhatsApp group. Okay. All right, cool. And then I’ll send over a message then and and go from there Thanks man Uh yeah. And then just see what he’s got and kind of try to figure out something cause. Yeah, if you increase that height um, they’re probably gonna tell you.
[0:23:20.310 - 0:24:09.860] Speaker 3: That, you need to come down a foot for your head over on the third floor. Now, that’s what we don’t want to end up happening. Um, But uh I wonder, if uh because at the end, you’re going to have to submit us uh an elevation certificate. So the first one is going to be the top of the form. Um, We didn’t turn in anything to Ken Anderson after that, when we poured that sub slab, we just sent in the form and that was it. Uh, We’re going to have to send another one when when we do our first floor. So, um, you know, I don’t know if they’re actually going to check the concrete then. You know what I mean? After it’s poured. Uh, the only thing they might check is again the elevation for the overall building. So but that would change so. Let.
[0:24:09.860 - 0:24:18.980] Speaker 4: Me uh let me think about it as well. Thank you so much for your input. I really appreciate it and let me uh, let me take some of this back to structural as well to see how problematic it is.
[0:24:19.410 - 0:24:27.270] Speaker 3: Yeah. Alright, cool. I don’t mind. And just holler if y’all need something else, okay? Appreciate it. Alright, perfect. Sorry about.
[0:24:27.510 - 0:24:29.130] Speaker 1: Thank you Stephen for everything.
[0:24:38.070 - 0:24:42.810] Speaker 5: You know, sorry you have reached a number that has been disconnected or service Please check.
[0:24:54.200 - 0:25:21.940] Speaker 2: We are sorry, You have reached a number that has been disconnected or is no longer in service.
[0:25:57.080 - 0:25:57.680] Speaker 4: Or compact.
[0:25:59.480 - 0:26:38.190] Speaker 1: So, before we pour the concrete, HOA will visit the site per the guideline and they will check the foundation. I don’t know what they are looking, but if it is the elevation and we want to a little bit higher than right now, it may be an issue. I’m not sure. I don’t think that they will. Anyone will check the final elevation because it’s very difficult to realize that one. If we have an issue with rising the foundation, we may see at the beginning. But I don’t think no one.
[0:26:38.670 - 0:26:43.470] Speaker 4: Let me see, you know, the thing is that if it’s above the five hundred year flood plain, why do we care?
[0:26:43.890 - 0:27:17.230] Speaker 1: Yes. And also not Steven, but probably Andre said that also the utilities are working well. So this is another issue actually. So if your yes, for example, If your house is a little bit lower, but the connection of the cities for those sewer storm, sewer whatever they are still at the right elevation, then it’s an issue actually. But what they say, everything is working with the same way, three feet under that, it needs to be. So how?
[0:27:17.590 - 0:27:36.610] Speaker 4: But the only thing, if you elevate the house I, don’t think any of the utilities would go. Would screw get screwed up, look, sewer is gravity right? So a higher house doesn’t affect it. Well, like you see, it doesn’t matter at all. Yes. And the only thing is water, but water pressure is high enough that it can.
[0:27:37.390 - 0:27:39.970] Speaker 1: So Andre said that everything’s okay about that. Yeah.
[0:27:40.090 - 0:28:19.040] Speaker 4: So but but it doesn’t matter either way. The one thing that matters maybe is the flood. Yes, then if the house is too low, that there’s a flood plain issue. And. And so, so I just really need to look into that. Um, you know, Maybe what we do is we get we let first I think we should let our cultural people know. That this is happening. Um and then the second because they’re going to be inspecting the site, So we should let them know ahead of time, and then we should ask them if there’s any.
[0:28:20.440 - 0:28:29.860] Speaker 1: So he said that structural engineer, but it is mostly I believe that the civil engineers subject. I.
[0:28:30.160 - 0:28:35.260] Speaker 4: Agree with you. And you’re asking if we need to get an opinion from a civil engineer. Yes. I don’t think it’s bad thing.
[0:28:37.000 - 0:28:44.560] Speaker 1: Your question was correct when you asked this to Stephen actually, instead of structural engineers. And.
[0:28:45.220 - 0:28:52.350] Speaker 4: If we get a civil engineer, and if we hire the. What should we charge? A thousand, five thousand dollars.
[0:28:52.530 - 0:28:56.250] Speaker 1: We have a company already, Interfield. So I.
[0:28:56.550 - 0:28:57.570] Speaker 4: Which company is it called?
[0:28:57.930 - 0:28:59.370] Speaker 1: Interfield, the company name.
[0:28:59.430 - 0:29:01.290] Speaker 4: Is this the soil? Same one that did the soil?
[0:29:04.530 - 0:29:06.330] Speaker 1: No, not but.
[0:29:12.330 - 0:29:15.990] Speaker 4: Or did they. The structural people use a civil person. Maybe maybe.
[0:29:20.640 - 0:29:30.600] Speaker 1: This needs should be from civil engineering. Okay, yes.
[0:29:31.560 - 0:29:42.600] Speaker 4: So look, I think we should talk to so and we didn’t. I don’t think we heard no about the day work days structural actually. So let’s let structural people know.
[0:29:46.440 - 0:30:20.030] Speaker 1: So I just want some clarity on this because It’s not a good company, but you can ask them why they can develop. So they don’t have any responsibility. For example, we had an issue at Fair Day; they drove that one wrong. Our plumbing guy warned us; they correct that. I was keep asking, “Hey, is it your?” Which company? The big computer one. They don’t need it; I understand that there are no good communication.
[0:30:20.030 - 0:30:47.960] Speaker 1: Where’s our street marker? The benchmark area. It doesn’t show here because it is a cut coming area. What is the benchmark? Benchmark is saying you do for the team. One hundred and thirty point five. It’s shown,
[0:30:48.320 - 0:30:54.020] Speaker 4: But interestingly enough, wait this is the front of the house. We showed one twenty nine, one twenty nine, one twenty nine, one twenty nine.
[0:30:57.020 - 0:31:02.840] Speaker 1: Benchmark story: This is the house; benchmark is somewhere here. There is an island between.
[0:31:03.500 - 0:31:07.400] Speaker 4: You can see that it’s showing one twenty nights.
[0:31:07.820 - 0:31:19.030] Speaker 1: Yes, because of that actually so everything is, Three feet under. Under that, yeah. U G G is working.
[0:31:19.570 - 0:31:24.430] Speaker 4: Look, I am going to summarize this call and send it to our structural folks.
[0:31:25.270 - 0:31:28.870] Speaker 1: Actually, I saved this if you oh yes,
[0:31:29.050 - 0:31:30.489] Speaker 4: I did situation three.
| ID | Timestamp / source | Claim as stated or tightly paraphrased | Why and how it needs verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 00:36-01:28, Speaker 3 | A local elevation “in this particular case” is about 130.05, and an elevation up the street is 130.96. | Identify which point each number describes, its datum, survey date, drawing/certificate, and whether “130.05” is an ASR error. |
| D2 | 00:36-01:28, Speaker 3 | The “true” elevation is about 3 feet below the local/The Woodlands number, based on GIS or “the geological survey.” | Obtain sealed surveys, raw GNSS/level-loop data, benchmark descriptions, datum/epoch, geoid model, units, and closure. GIS is generally not a substitute for a boundary/topographic survey. |
| D3 | 01:28-02:26, Speaker 3 | The Woodlands has based elevations on monument control for roughly 40 years. | Obtain the governing benchmark/vertical-control specifications and their adoption/revision history. |
| D4 | 01:28-02:26, Speaker 3 | The relevant monuments no longer exist; both Speaker 3 and his surveyor searched for them. | Confirm monument IDs, published descriptions, recovery notes, destruction/reset records, and whether successor monuments/TBMs exist. |
| D5 | 01:28-02:26, Speaker 3 | The Woodlands paperwork requires anything built on the island to follow its monuments or temporary benchmarks. | Locate the actual covenant, design guideline, plat note, permit condition, benchmark sheet, or written instruction; identify the legal entity and approval body. |
| D6 | 01:28-02:26 and 18:19-18:28, Speaker 3 | The island minimum finished-floor elevation is 133.5, and all houses “have to be at least” that elevation. | Confirm the controlling plan note/guideline, applicable lot(s), datum, definition of finished floor, tolerance, and any grandfathering or lot-specific requirements. |
| D7 | 01:28-02:26, Speaker 3 | A finished floor of 133.5 under The Woodlands system is at or above Montgomery County’s “500-year flood plain,” but only “just right at.” | Obtain the current effective FEMA FIRM/FIS, 0.2%-annual-chance flood elevation or other governing model, county floodplain criteria, lot survey, and common-datum conversion. A mapped 0.2% boundary may not have a single published BFE. |
| D8 | 02:26-02:50, Speaker 3 | After a dispute, The Woodlands told his team, in substance, use our number or do not build. | Obtain meeting notes, emails, approval comments, participants, and the actual authority under which the statement was made. |
| D9 | 03:42-04:16, Speaker 3 | Building on the island constitutes acceptance of what The Woodlands stipulates. | This is a contractual/legal conclusion; review recorded covenants, design-review application terms, plats, permit conditions, purchase documents, and Texas law. |
| D10 | 04:16-04:23, Speaker 4 / overlap | The elevation condition is a Woodlands overlay rather than an HOA condition. | Identify the exact entities: township, development company, residential design-review committee/association, county, utility district, and any recorded overlay/standards document. |
| D11 | 04:23-05:15 and 05:42-06:14, Speaker 3 | One monument near Hughes Landing/Grogan’s Mill and another near the island gate are gone; a traffic light now occupies the supposed Hughes Landing monument location. | Recover monument records and field notes; ask a Texas RPLS to verify physical status and replacement control rather than relying on visual search alone. |
| D12 | 05:15-05:38, Speaker 3 | His surveyors went “out to Colorado,” found three geological-survey monuments, and all showed The Woodlands values were materially off. | “Colorado” is likely an ASR/place-name problem. Identify the actual control points, agency (USGS/NGS/other), coordinates/elevations, datum, stability, and survey method. |
| D13 | 06:14-07:11, Speaker 3 | At the far end of “Area L,” the local value is 130.96 and the claimed true value is 127.98, a 2.98-foot difference. | The arithmetic is correct, but the location, datum, epoch, benchmark ID, instrument readings, and sealed survey must be verified. Do not assume this exact offset applies at 25 Aria Isle. |
| D14 | 06:14-07:11, Speaker 3 | The Woodlands will not accept a pre-pour elevation certificate showing an elevation below its required number. | Obtain the submittal checklist, rejection letter/comments, certificate form, inspection sequence, and identity/authority of reviewer. |
| D15 | 06:14-07:11, Speaker 3 | Montgomery County also will not accept a certificate showing too-low elevations and will require the building to be changed because it is in a floodplain. | Verify current Montgomery County floodplain-development regulations, permit conditions, required design-flood elevation/freeboard, and whether this lot is actually in a regulated SFHA or 0.2% area. |
| D16 | 07:11-08:09, Speaker 3 | On the alternative/modern datum the condition would show the site in the 100-year floodplain. | Require a licensed surveyor/civil engineer to place the lot, existing ground, proposed FFE, FEMA BFE, and 0.2% elevation on the same datum. |
| D17 | 07:11-08:09, Speaker 3 | His team hired a separate surveyor and instructed that surveyor to use The Woodlands monuments/TBMs for the certificate. | Obtain both surveyors’ work products and written instructions; confirm professional compliance, datum disclosure, benchmark traceability, and whether any datum conversion was reported. |
| D18 | 07:11-08:09 and 10:56-11:26, Speaker 3 | County/insurance records treat 133.5 as the minimum FFE; after a roughly 3-foot correction it equals a true elevation of about 130.5, at the 500-year level. | Verify all elevations on a single datum and identify the actual flood elevation. “Insurance records” and “county records” should not be presumed identical. |
| D19 | 09:14-10:34, Speaker 3 | Elevation certificates used by county and insurance are based on The Woodlands control and thereby make the parties “all clear.” | Review the actual elevation certificate(s), datum fields, surveyor certification, insurer underwriting requirements, county acceptance, and any duty to disclose a known datum discrepancy. |
| D20 | 09:43-10:34, Speaker 3 | Insurers act only if a house is below the 500-year floodplain and are concerned only with the range between the 100- and 500-year floodplains. | Verify with the actual carrier/broker/underwriter and NFIP/lender rules. This broad insurance statement is not reliable without policy-specific evidence. |
| D21 | 09:43-10:34, Speaker 3 | Hughes Landing did flood; at least one restaurant where elevations were shot was underwater. | Identify the event, restaurant, date, flood depth/source, photographs, high-water marks, and whether flooding was riverine, pluvial, drainage-related, or interior. |
| D22 | 10:56-11:34, Speaker 3 | The “reality” is that the relevant 500-year elevation is 130.5, and all island houses must be at least 133.5 on The Woodlands system. | Reconcile with D7/D18 and current mapping; confirm whether 130.5 is a flood elevation, a benchmark, a sub-slab elevation, or a shorthand conversion. |
| D23 | 11:35-12:09, Speakers 4 and 3 | The subject project’s land/survey contact is KGW; Speaker 3 spoke with someone from Keystone and explained the benchmark issue. | Confirm each firm’s scope, responsible professional, written direction, and whether Keystone and KGW are being confused. |
| D24 | 12:09-13:01, Speaker 3 | His separate crawl-space project is building its first floor at 136.85 on The Woodlands system. | Obtain that project’s approved plans/elevation certificates; do not treat it as the subject house or a comparable without location/datum confirmation. |
| D25 | 13:01-13:59, Speaker 3 | The same project will be at a “true” elevation of 133.85, about 3.15 feet above the 500-year floodplain. | Verify the datum conversion and flood elevation; the statement is internally inconsistent with the nearby 130.5 figure (see numeric audit below). |
| D26 | 13:59-14:11, Speaker 3 | Raising the subject FFE to 134.5 would place it about 1 foot above the actual 500-year flood elevation. | This follows only if the 3-foot offset and 130.5 flood elevation are correct and uniform at the subject lot; obtain sealed civil/survey confirmation before design changes. |
| D27 | 14:23-14:59 and 16:31-17:15, Speaker 3 | A one-foot FFE increase could be handled by reducing beam embedment into existing soil or increasing beam depth/concrete, with structural-engineer approval. | This was expressly a made-up example, not a design. Require the geotechnical report, REV4 structural plans/calculations, engineer-of-record analysis, uplift/bearing/settlement checks, and revised sealed drawings. |
| D28 | 15:18-15:59, Speaker 3 | Montgomery County requires elevations with plan submittals but is easy about changes; added items can be filed. | Verify permit status, county correction/change process, floodplain permit requirements, and whether revised sealed plans are required before construction. |
| D29 | 15:18-16:31, Speaker 3 | Jim Edgerton handles architectural standards and broadly covers structural/other standards; an FFE increase should be sent to him. | Confirm his current role/authority and the formal architectural-review submission channel. Do not rely on personal-name routing alone. |
| D30 | 16:01-17:15, Speaker 3 | A neighbor is at 134+ and might be at 140; because other houses are higher, the authority “can’t deny” a request to raise this house. | Neighbor elevations need record evidence; the non-denial conclusion is legal/approval speculation and requires review of the actual variance/design standards. |
| D31 | 16:31-17:15, Speaker 3 | Raising the foundation one foot “is not going to change anything architecturally” and only needs structural sign-off. | Check architectural elevations, overall-height limits, drainage/grading, stairs/entries, accessibility, utilities, roofline, setbacks, landscape, floodplain, and permit/design-review requirements. The later variance discussion cuts against this claim. |
| D32 | 17:31-18:13, Speaker 3 | His longstanding surveyor found instrument readings inconsistent with the marker and said something was wrong. | Obtain the field book, instrument type/calibration, setup/closure, benchmark description, conversion, and surveyor’s signed conclusion. |
| D33 | 18:41-19:28, Speaker 3 | Probably half of island homes build to the minimum; the first few homes did not know about the discrepancy. | This is an estimate. Verify from approved plans, elevation certificates, permit files, or a systematic survey. |
| D34 | 18:41-19:34, Speaker 3 | His foundation excavation found 3-5 feet of debris/trash beneath about 3 feet of select fill, requiring excavation and claims. | Identify the lot, geotechnical logs, photos, excavation tickets, claim documents, fill certification, and whether conditions exist at the subject lot. |
| D35 | 19:34-19:58, Speakers 4/3 | Speaker 3’s project is all-concrete/heavy; the subject lot is not as heavy. | Confirm structural systems and loads in current plans. “Lot is heavy” is imprecise; soil/foundation risk depends on loads and subsurface conditions. |
| D36 | 19:57-20:37, Speaker 3 | The structural engineer will base the foundation on the soils report and should be told the true elevation may put the house at the 500-year level. | Confirm engineer-of-record scope, geotechnical basis, and whether elevation/flood design is civil/survey versus structural responsibility; document coordination in writing. |
| D37 | 20:38-20:53, Speaker 4 | Shanti obtained a variance allowing a taller third floor/building. | Obtain the signed variance/approval, approved height/elevations, conditions, expiration, and incorporated drawings. |
| D38 | 20:54-21:23 and 23:20-24:09, Speaker 3 | Raising the foundation could jeopardize the third-floor variance or force a one-foot reduction at the third floor. | Compare the variance’s measurement datum and maximum height against revised architectural sections; obtain written determination from the approval authority. |
| D39 | 20:54-21:30, Speakers 3/4 | Materials showing finished floor/architecture were submitted to Ken Anderson or Igor’s team. | Locate the exact submission, transmittal, accepted set/revision, comments, and decision; identify whether it is the latest REV4/current set. |
| D40 | 21:30-22:32, Speakers 3/4 | Someone/HOA will check actual elevation, and overall building height is easy to measure with optical survey equipment. | Verify inspection scope, checkpoints, tolerances, record-survey requirements, and responsible authority. The speakers themselves were uncertain. |
| D41 | 23:20-24:09, Speaker 3 | The elevation-certificate sequence is top-of-form first and first-floor later; his project submitted the form after a sub-slab and expects another certificate at first floor. | Obtain the governing checklist and distinguish his project practice from requirements for this lot; clarify top-of-form, lowest floor, final construction, and as-built certificates. |
| D42 | 25:59-26:38, Speaker 1 | Before concrete, the HOA will visit and inspect the foundation under its guidelines. | Obtain the applicable guideline, inspection request/notice, checklist, required documents, and whether inspection is HOA, residential design review, or another entity. |
| D43 | 25:59-26:38, Speaker 1 | A final elevation probably will not be checked because a one-foot difference is difficult to see; any issue likely appears at the beginning. | This is a risky prediction, not a reliable approval rule. Verify final/as-built survey and inspection/CO requirements; do not plan around non-detection. |
| D44 | 26:43-27:40, Speakers 1/4 | Andre said the utilities work under the existing three-foot-shifted system; raising the house will not hurt gravity sewer, and water pressure is sufficient. | Require civil/plumbing verification of sanitary invert/slope, service depths, storm drainage, backwater risk, water pressure, meter elevations, tie-in points, and utility-authority criteria. |
| D45 | 27:40-28:19, Speaker 4 | Flood elevation is the only potentially material issue; the project should notify its architectural people before site inspection. | Other effects can include structure, drainage, height, entries, utilities, landscaping, and approvals. Confirm the identity of “architectural people” and the formal notice process. |
| D46 | 28:20-29:31, Speakers 1/4 | The elevation issue is mainly civil engineering, but structural should also be informed; obtaining a civil opinion is appropriate. | Confirm scope allocation among RPLS, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, structural engineer, architect, builder, and authority. |
| D47 | 28:52-29:06, Speaker 1 | Interfield is an existing company on the project but is not the same party that did the soils work. | Verify Interfield’s executed scope, responsible engineer, deliverables, and conflicts/independence before assuming it can supply the needed opinion. |
| D48 | 29:46-30:20, Speaker 1 | A prior issue at “Fair Day” involved something being done wrong and corrected after the plumber warned the team; communication with a company was poor. | The ASR is too garbled to identify the event or company. Confirm only if the prior-project analogy is used to assess competence or responsibility. |
| D49 | 30:20-31:19, Speakers 1/4 | A displayed benchmark is 130.5, the front of the subject house shows 129, and “everything is three feet under.” | Identify the drawing/screen being viewed, point labels, datum, existing/proposed grades, and whether 130.5 is the benchmark elevation or another design elevation. The 129-to-130.5 difference is 1.5 feet, not 3 feet, absent other context. |
| D50 | Overall / 25:59 | The subject house is still pre-concrete/pre-pour; the team plans to send the issue to structural. | Confirm actual construction status, permits, released-for-construction revisions, survey staking, and whether any irreversible work has occurred since the call. |
| ID | Timestamp / speaker | Statement or inference | Verification concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | 03:10-03:40, Speaker 3 | The elevations were never correct and originated in an early-1920s, pre-satellite calculation system. | Speaker 3 expressly says “I do not believe” and “I think.” Historical control-datum records are needed. |
| I2 | 03:42-04:16, Speaker 3 | Everybody on the island knows the elevations are wrong. | Generalization; requires interviews/records, not anecdote. |
| I3 | Repeated, Speaker 3 | The Woodlands “doesn’t care.” | Characterization/opinion. Separate tone from documented decisions and reasons. |
| I4 | 07:11-08:42, Speaker 3 | The authority can “get around” the datum issue because 133.5 still reaches the 500-year level and because of deep pockets. | Causal/legal theory, not evidence of compliance or intent. |
| I5 | 08:08-08:53, Speakers 3/4 | The controlling entity is the “Hughes Foundation or whoever,” possibly “The Woodlands Foundation.” | The speakers are explicitly unsure. Identify the actual developer/association/review body from current official records. |
| I6 | 08:53-09:11, Speaker 3 | Most of The Woodlands has the same issue; many areas were lower/in floodplains than represented, and property was sold anyway. | Speaker 3 says “I think,” “I can’t promise that,” and “that’s what I believe.” Treat as unverified allegation, especially as to motive. |
| I7 | 09:43-11:26, Speaker 3 | Being at/above the 500-year level means the owner is not in harm’s way and insurance should not be a problem. | Risk conclusion exceeds the evidence. Flooding can occur outside mapped zones; insurance/lender terms are policy-specific. |
| I8 | 12:03-12:09, Speaker 4 / response context | Following the local line means there should be no trouble with the build. | The answer is garbled and may not actually say “no trouble.” Verify all independent approvals. |
| I9 | 13:59-14:11, Speaker 3 | A one-foot safety margin above the asserted true 500-year level is the proper target. | Engineering recommendation without demonstrated governing criterion; compare county freeboard/code, owner’s risk tolerance, and full drainage analysis. |
| I10 | 16:01-17:15, Speaker 3 | Design review cannot deny an extra foot because neighbors are higher. | Legal/approval opinion; past approvals do not automatically control this lot or its variance. |
| I11 | 18:41-19:28, Speaker 3 | About half the houses use the minimum, and later builders now understand the issue. | Estimate and speculation. |
| I12 | 21:30-24:09 and 25:59-26:38, Speakers 3/1/4 | Reviewers may not check the final concrete elevation, or may only check overall height. | Repeated uncertainty; must never be used as a compliance strategy. |
| I13 | 27:17-27:40, Speaker 4 | Raising the house cannot adversely affect gravity sewer or water service. | Directionally plausible but incomplete; site-specific invert, slope, pressure, and backflow calculations are required. |
| I14 | 28:20-29:31, Speakers 1/4 | Civil engineering is the main discipline and a second civil opinion should be relatively inexpensive (roughly $1,000-$5,000 is posed). | Scope, independence, deliverables, and fee are unresolved; the dollar figures were a question, not an estimate from a consultant. |
| ID | AI-summary statement | Direct basis versus inference |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | The old system conflicts with “GIS/USGS” and should be reconciled with “GNSS/USGS data.” | Direct speech says GIS / geological survey / geological-survey monuments. USGS and GNSS are Plaud’s synthesis, not reliably verbatim. |
| S2 | The Woodlands’ benchmark system governs approvals even if inaccurate. | Synthesis of D5, D8, D14, and D18. The controlling-document/legal conclusion still needs proof. |
| S3 | Building to 133.5 “satisfies county 500-year floodplain criteria.” | Synthesis of Speaker 3’s assertion; no county/FEMA document was produced. |
| S4 | County and insurers focus on 100- and 500-year thresholds and regard risk as acceptable above the 500-year level. | Synthesizes Speaker 3’s broad insurance assertions; carrier/lender and county rules may differ. |
| S5 | “Correct certificate submissions” are required for both county and HOA approvals. | County/The Woodlands certificate discussion is direct; the transcript does not clearly establish that the HOA itself requires the same certificate. |
| S6 | An elevation increase may require HOA/city resubmission. | The call asks about city/HOA/county, but the response is garbled and refers to Montgomery County and Jim Edgerton. Identify the actual jurisdiction; The Woodlands is not incorporated as a city. |
| S7 | Notify HOA/architectural review in advance to avoid inspection surprises. | Sensible action synthesized from Speaker 4’s suggestion, not a quoted mandatory procedure. |
| S8 | Utilities are likely unaffected by a modest increase. | Synthesizes a high-level gravity/pressure discussion; no utility calculations or plans were reviewed in the call. |
| S9 | Remediate buried debris “as encountered.” | Plaud generalizes a condition on Speaker 3’s separate lot; there is no evidence in the call that the same condition exists at 25 Aria Isle. |
| S10 | The project should obtain top-of-form and first-floor elevation certificates. | Based on Speaker 3’s experience; confirm the subject project’s exact county/design-review sequence and required forms. |
The recording directly establishes that participants discussed and believed there may be an approximately three-foot discrepancy and that Speaker 3 recommended a one-foot FFE increase. It does not itself establish the correct vertical datum, the subject lot’s true elevation, the governing 0.2%-annual-chance flood elevation, the validity of The Woodlands benchmark, permit/insurance consequences, or the legality/engineering sufficiency of raising the foundation. Those require the documents and licensed-professional determinations listed above.