Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Issue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor raises drainage and retaining-wall concerns at Tower Hill Road during variance hearing
Summary
At the Board of Adjustments hearing, a neighbor said a natural spring and changed flow patterns have directed water into her driveway for years, damaging a retaining wall; staff said the drainage issue is outside the variance scope but would be raised with city public-works staff for follow-up.
During public comment on a front-setback variance for 127 Tower Hill Road, neighbor Jennifer Gobel told the Board of Adjustments she has lived at 135 Tower Hill Road for 38 years and that a natural spring on the adjacent property has redirected water into her driveway in recent seasons.
"There is a natural spring on that property," Gobel said. "It's flowing into my driveway. I have to power wash it. I've already power washed it three times since spring. My retaining wall is crumbling because of it." She told the board she previously asked the city to install a pipe to carry the water under the road into the creek but that the problem persisted.
Applicant Jacob Ortman acknowledged the change in drainage patterns was visible during clearing and said the project team would likely install tile drainage on site, which he expected would help. Thomas Weed Holder, representing neighbors above the site at 116 Donley, said a prior sanitation district pipe installation had contributed to hillside movement in the area.
City staff (Mr. Stewart) told the board that the drainage and geotechnical questions are outside the narrow front-setback variance decision but that plan review and inspections would address retaining-wall design and any required geotechnical work. Staff committed to follow up with relevant operations staff and flagged Kevin Barbian as a historical point of contact on the issue.
The board approved the 10-foot front-setback variance for 127 Tower Hill Road but did not direct immediate remediation in the hearing; it advised the neighbor and applicant to pursue permit-driven technical reviews and to coordinate with staff for any needed remedial work.
Next steps: the applicant was instructed to work with Mr. Stewart on plan review; neighbors seeking remedial public-works action were told staff would raise the complaint with the appropriate city personnel for follow-up.
