For quite some time, I have represented groups opposed to inappropriate development. By inappropriate development, I mean development that is too intense for either the local community, the infrastructure, and/or the environment.

Don't get me wrong; I am not against development, and my clients are not against development. In fact, I represent many developers. However, what is problematic is development that can't be supported where it is proposed.

Common examples of inappropriate development include housing projects with way to many units, shopping centers that are entirely too large, factories that are too loud, too big, too polluting, or any combination thereof.

In this article, I want to discuss the lies that developers of inappropriate development will often resort to in order to trick the local land-use board or local governing body into granting the necessary approvals and permits. If you are confronting a proposal that is inappropriate, watch out for these lies.

Number One: There will be no traffic impacts as a result of this development.

Developers are keenly aware that residents are very concerned about traffic and very sensitive about the impacts that inappropriate development will have on local traffic. Accordingly, developers frequently hire the same old traffic experts over and over again, who provide the same old testimony, over and over again.

They will testify under oath that there will be no net increase in the amount of traffic. Or, when that is plainly laughable, they will testify that either the amount of traffic that will be generated will be negligible, or that through calming devices and other devices the traffic problems will be mitigated to the point where they are barely perceptible.

Watch out for this traffic scam. Rely on your ordinary senses. If an inactive area becomes a significant strip shopping center, there may be thousands of cars a day introduced into local roads and intersections. It defies all logic to assume that this substantial addition will not have an impact. What sounds too good to be true is too good to be true. And it is often a dastardly lie.

Number Two: Storm water from the development will not cause flooding.

When you construct an inappropriate development, you usually have to pave a lot of what was previously unpaved land. When you pave this much, the water can no longer be absorbed into the ground and this results in flooding.

Developers of inappropriate projects are aware that neighbors are concerned about flooding. Accordingly, they will always hire the same old consultants who will in very many cases actually provide testimony that the storm water will be better managed after the development than before the development.

And when that doesn't pass the giggle test, they will tell you that in any event, this storm water meets some kind of local or state standard.

When you have a lot of new pavement, there is no absorption and the water has to go someplace. Watch out for this storm water mythology. And don't let local land-use regulators buy into this silliness.

Number Three: There will not be any pollution in the storm water.

Large-scale inappropriate development not only results in storm water that can cause flooding, but also results in storm water that carries pollutants. Oils, automotive fluids, animal waste, and a host of pollutants are frequently transported to down gradient communities, streams, lakes and rivers. There needs to be a sound method for addressing these pollutants.

Watch out for the method proposed by the applicant. Does it require some kind of maintenance or filtration system? If so, how do we know that this maintenance is going to take place. And, who is ensuring that the system was properly designed.

These kinds of systems may cost millions of dollars, and there is often a temptation by inappropriate developers to take shortcuts.

Number Four: The project isn't going to be noisy and isn't going to create a nuisance.

When you have a large-scale inappropriate development, it often causes a nuisances for those who live in the surrounding area. Whether it's a constant sound in the community that didn't exist before, or light pollution from many streetlights or spotlights, or a nuisance caused by an emergence of tractor-trailer trucks and trash disposal trucks that did not previously exist, the changing use is likely going to cause a nuisance where the change is for an inappropriate development.

Watch out for promises that there were going to be restrictions on the hours of operations. And watch out for promises that the lights are going to be shielded so they don't cause problems. Often, these promises are short-lived, and when there are violations, nobody can be found to enforce them.

Number Five: There are no wetlands or other environmental constraints.

When developers of inappropriate projects present their projects, it's not uncommon for them to assert before the local government and the community that there are no environmental constraints such as wetlands, steep slopes, and stream encroachment problems.

Very often, developers of inappropriate projects fail to identify wetlands that are actually present on the property. They will often understate the amount of wetlands and overstate the amount of uplands, thereby creating the impression that more of the property is legally developable that actually is the case.

Also, watch for this trick which seems to be increasing with frequency: developers may destroy the environmentally significant features of a property before they will seek land-use approval. I have observed this on a few occasions.

What is the bottom-line to all of this? The bottom line is that neighbors have the right to oppose inappropriate development in their community. Development is necessary and can be desirable. But inappropriate development should not be approved.

Unfortunately, it's the local neighborhood who is often in the best position to know whether a project is inappropriate. Land-use regulators may not be as familiar with the local community and it really falls upon the community to participates in these approval hearings.

The five above examples are illustrations of common practices. Clearly, this list is far from exhaustive because those seeking to do wrong tend to have limitless imaginations.