12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not sure) because of this problem a small retaining wall was built toward the bottom of the hill. This does not solve the problem. In addition, a partial swale was constructed parallel to the wall. There are two problems with this swale. First, the depth along the wall is almost non-existent. It is perhaps an inch or two deep. Second, the swale becomes quite defined at the eastern end of the wall just as it takes a very sharp and pronounced turn into my property and then into the pond, rather than continue across the property in question and then to the pond. This sharp departure was built on my property without any consultation or pennission from me. A similar problem was created at the back of the house, namely around the northwest side of the house and pool and the south end of the pool. The original contour rose to about 938 feet. The building plan shows an elevation of approximately the same height. The actual elevation is between 942 and 943 feet or some four to five feet higher than the approved plan. In addition, there is a significant wall above this fill to accommodate the pool itself. Instead of water running parallel down the lot line toward the lake it now runs off a very steep embankment into my yard. At some point rocks were placed along side the pool. 1 believe this to be a very weak attempt to slow the run off. In short, I believe too much fill has been added to this property. It is understandable that a developer may exceed the approved specifications by 5 to 10 percent but in this case the excess is more than 100 percent. What was once a fairly level yard (looking from my property) is now a highly inclined hill. Water drainage should not be diverted to my property because of this excessive addition of fill. Nor should a swale be built on my property. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, William G. Cornelius