Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds <br /> BRS File No. : 11016684 <br /> Our File No. : MPS27645 <br /> April 17, 1997 <br /> Tonkawa Road from runoff from adjacent property. We do, however, <br /> wish to comment upon whether they had made any errors or <br /> committed any negligent acts anyway. We do not feel that they <br /> did. <br /> The adjacent property owner has no obligation to prevent water <br /> from running off of his property onto the property of another <br /> except when he alters the land in some way to increase the nature <br /> of the runoff. In that case, he is responsible only to correct <br /> any increase in the nature of the runoff caused by his <br /> alterations. The city inspectors were attempting to see that <br /> accommodations were made for any increases in the amount of <br /> runoff caused by the most recent construction on the adjacent <br /> property. They feel that they accomplished this objective. They <br /> actually believe that the accommodations made by the adjacent <br /> property owner took care of not only the increase in runoff, but <br /> some of the pre-existing runoff. <br /> The inspectors point out that your property at 1030 Tonkawa Road <br /> is more or less the low point in the area and that water has <br /> historically run off adjacent property through your property to <br /> the lake. They indicate that the previous owner of your property <br /> frequently complained of water problems. You had inquired <br /> regarding whether or not the City undertook to solve those <br /> problems, but we point out their only efforts would have been <br /> related to any increase in runoff caused by construction on <br /> adjacent properties. <br /> We do have the impression that you feel the neighbors and the <br /> City should have taken care of all the water that runs onto your <br /> property from adjacent property. To my knowledge, that has never <br /> been the law. The principle has long been that one takes care of <br /> any increase in the nature of runoff from their property that <br /> results from their own construction or alteration of the grade on <br /> their property. The City would have no right or obligation to <br /> require any landowner to do more. <br /> We also wanted to comment on the issue of damages. From our <br /> discussions with the two city inspectors, your contractor and <br /> with you, we question whether you could have got by with a lesser <br /> wall even if the small surface stone wall at one time <br /> contemplated by your neighbor had been constructed. It seems <br /> regardless of whether or not the previously contemplated wall had <br /> been constructed, you would have had to build a wall from the <br /> depth of your excavation for your underground garages to the base <br /> 3 <br />