Re: drainage from adjoining property

Home Browse Search

FACTS —Howells. 1423 Parlc Drive. Oroizo. MN On Friday, June 25`h. 2004, a landscape contractor completed a project, which included chanQinQ the grade in the rear of the house, installina a sizeable cement patio, and i�lstalling drain tile fi•om the fi•ont of the house; around the south end of the house, across the lot, coiu�ectin5 several downspouts around the l�ouse and fiizally exitina near our property line. Every aspect of the proj ect causes additional volume and velocity of water to be directed to our property. This project, combined with greater hardcover fi•om the new (2002) house and several other downspouts on the north side of the house, resulted ii1 nearly 100% of the nuloff directed onto our property. On the 25`�', we spol:e to the landscape contractor and one of the homeowners; we explained that we didn't want the additioizal water drainina onto our property. We asked thenz to extend the drain tile approx. 30 feet and exit down their hill onto their lakeshore—they refiise_d saying that it would cost more money, that"�vater nins dowi�lzill", �nd that we're lucky it's not rnore water. We offered to dig the trench appro�. 30 feet to save them money. Th�y refused. They said they would move the exit so that it would be 5 feet f.rom the property line rather than on the property linc itself. We said we would contact the City of Orono aiter the weel:end. During the week of June 28`�', Jon talked to the Building Inspector, Lyl� Oman. Lyle said "it didn't sound right", that he would check t11e file, and af-ter the Independence Day holiday, that he would checic the site. Shortly after that,�ve received a two inch rainfall. The water drainage was noticeably different than prior to the drain tile installation, and our lakeshore area had standing water for several days, making it unusable for a week. During the week of July 12`�', Jon talked to Lyle. Lyle said that the previous weelc, he sent another inspector to the site, and he did not indicate that anythina was wrong. During the weeks of Suly 19`�'-26°', we sought legal counsel. The conclusion is tliat the landscape project clearly needed a permit, and that the water drainage clearly violates the volume &velocity [58.2(e}]. Durin�the weelc of July 26`", Jon called the Gity to validate if a permit was obtaii�ed for the project—one of the Administrative Support personnel said there was none in the file. The call was transfened to Lyle Oman, he said he remembered the conversation with Jon a couple of weelcs earlier, and that he would checic on the situation. We have not received a satisfactorv resolution to the drainage issue. •