Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Ridgway commission staff ‘not in compliance’ with adopted code, cites blocked drainage and hand-drawn elevations
Summary
At the Planning Commission meeting, a resident accused town staff of accepting hand-drawn elevations and failing to enforce grading and drainage standards after an 8-foot berm and gravel aprons allegedly encroached on two drainage easements, and warned further approvals would be seen as inaction.
A resident urged the Ridgway Planning Commission to enforce the town’s adopted grading and drainage standards, saying repeated complaints to staff have gone unanswered and that recent approvals appear to have ignored the code’s technical requirements.
During public comment, the speaker (identified in the record only as a resident) described an 8-foot engineered berm that she said sits in — and is slumping into — two drainage easements near her home and reported that gravel from a driveway is migrating into a stormwater inlet. She said staff previously allowed materials to be placed in the drainage easement during storm events and that the town responded to one complaint only after she submitted video evidence. “The staff is not in compliance with the adopted code,” she told commissioners, and asked, “Does the law matter or does it not?”
The resident also raised a procedural concern about the town’s acceptance of hand-drawn pre- and post-grade contours. She said several nearby properties either submitted hand-drawn elevations after construction or never submitted verifiable survey-based elevations, and that there is no apparent verification by town staff. She warned that accepting hand-drawn contours after construction would allow developers to alter submitted elevations post hoc and escape the technical limits adopted in the code.
The commenter referenced Appendix J of the International Building Code, saying it imposes grading limits (she cited a 50% limit), and questioned whether hybrid zoning or silent-plan provisions had allowed inconsistent standards to be applied — for example, applying GC standards to landscaping and driveways but not to grading. She asked commissioners to clarify whether the town’s zoning and grading requirements require survey-verified elevations and to explain why different standards appear to have been applied to adjacent properties.
Commission members did not offer an immediate policy response during public comment. Staff did not provide a contrary factual finding during the speaker’s turn; commissioners later discussed permitting and code enforcement processes in other agenda items.
The commission did not take formal action on the enforcement concerns during the meeting. Next procedural steps were not announced on the record for this specific complaint; residents and commissioners asked that questions about enforcement and timelines be handled through code enforcement channels.
Ending: The public-comment period closed and the commission proceeded to the Hyde Subdivision public hearing and subsequent business items.
