Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal over 160 Cedar permit, finds surveyor signature acceptable
Summary
The Birchwood Village Council denied an appeal by neighbors of 180 Cedar that challenged the permit for 160 Cedar Street, with staff and the city engineer concluding the surveyor signature met local requirements and that no engineered stormwater design was required for the permitted work.
Birchwood Village’s City Council voted to deny an appeal from residents of 180 Cedar Street who argued a permit issued for construction at 160 Cedar Street was improperly approved.
The appeal, filed by Nancy and Dave Drew, raised two points: (1) the submitted plan was signed by a surveyor rather than an engineer, which the Drews said conflicted with city code; and (2) the project lacked a stormwater control design adequate to prevent runoff onto neighboring property, the Drews said. The Planning Commission and city staff recommended denying the appeal.
During the hearing, City Engineer Marcus Johnson told the council he did not see a design that required an engineer’s signature and that local practice and neighboring towns typically require a licensed surveyor for the type of survey submitted. "I didn't see a whole lot of response of why [an engineer signature] was" required, Marcus said, and added that the property’s impervious area did not meet the thresholds that would trigger more intensive engineering review. Building Official Jack Gramer described the site soils as a shale/rocky type with a rapid percolation rate and said inspections showed silt fencing and containment were functioning.
Avery Morris, the permit holder, told the council he was confident staff followed code and that the lot drained quickly after recent heavy rains. Council members noted the current wet season and emphasized staff would continue monitoring the site as landscaping and final grading are completed. Ryan and other members said they understood neighbors’ concerns but agreed with staff assessments. Kathy moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried.
The council directed staff to prepare a written record of findings summarizing the technical rationale — including the engineer’s review of impervious-area thresholds and soil infiltration — and to provide that statement to the appellants. The decision was procedural: the council denied the appeal of the city’s permit determination rather than imposing new conditions on the Morris permit.
What happens next: the council’s action closes this administrative appeal unless the appellants pursue further appeal rights available under local code. Staff said they will revisit drainage concerns if evidence of adverse impacts emerges after construction is complete.
