Hearing on Mercer Island permit appeal centers on whether retaining walls sit on a disputed utility easement

Mercer Island — A hearing examiner on Feb. 27 heard competing claims over whether retaining walls, a gazebo and a greenhouse on a Mercer Island property encroach on a long‑disputed utility easement and whether the city’s building permit properly resolves that conflict.

The hearing, in Lynn v. City of Mercer Island, focused on whether a 12‑foot strip the parties call the "middle" easement (depicted on older plats and survey exhibits) still exists as an enforceable utility easement and therefore prohibits structures. Appellant Melina Lynn and her attorney said recent utility‑locate markings and photographs show that retaining walls and hardscaping intrude on that easement and should be removed. The applicant, Tammy Liu, and her counsel argued the permit was properly issued, that the driveway and utilities were relocated under recorded agreements and that the yard work was done to stabilize a steep slope.

Why it matters: Mercer Island code bars construction on water, sewer, storm‑drainage or utility easements unless the easement language or a written agreement between the parties permits structures. If a middle utility easement exists and the retaining walls lie on it, the city could require removal or a revision to the permit; if no such easement exists, the permit may stand and the applicant may finish the as‑built landscape work after any required inspections.

Appellant’s case

Appellant counsel John Yip told the examiner that the main…