Re: drainage - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FACTS —Hotivells 1423 Parlc Drive. Orono MN On Friday, June 25`�'. 2004, a landscape contractor completed a project, which included chanQina the arade in the rear of the house, installina a sizeable cemeiit patio, and i��stalling drain tile fi•om the fi•ont of the house, around the south end of t11e house, across the lot, coiuiectin�several downspouts around the liouse and finally exitin�near our property line. Every aspect of the proj ect causes additional volume and velocity of water to be directed to our �roperty. This project, combine.d with greater hardcover fi•om the new (?002) house and several other downspouts on the north side of the house, resulted in nearly 100% of the nuloff directed onto our property. On the 25°i, we spol:e to the landscape contractor and one of the liomeowners; we e�plained that we didn't want the additionat water draining onto our property. We asked them to extend the drain tile approx. 30 feet and exit down their hill onto their lakeshore—they refiised sayin�that it v�rould cost inore inoney, that"�v3ter runs dowi�lzill", �:nd that we're lucky it's not more. water. We offered to dig the treilch appro�. 30 feet to save them money. They refi►sed. They said they would move the exit so that it would be 5 feet f.rom the property line rather thaiz on the �roperty 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 I�Zspector, Ly1e Oman. Lyle said "it didn'i sound ri�ht", that he would check t11e file, and after the Independence Day holiday,that he would checic ihe site. Shortly after that, �ve received a t�vo inch rainfall. The water drainage was noticeably different than prior to the drain tile installation, and our lakeshore area had standing water for several ciays, making it unusable for a weelc. During the week of July 12`�', Jon talked to Lyle. Lyle said that the previous week, he sent another inspector to t�Ze site, and he did not indicate that anything was wrono. During the weeks of July 19`�'-26`�', we sought legal counsel. The conclusion is that the landscape project clearly needed a permit, and that ihe water drainage clearly violates the volume R: velocity [58.2(e)). Durina the �veelc of July 26"', Jon called the City to validate if a permit was obtained for the project—one of the Administrative Support personnel said there was none in the file. The call was transferred to Lyle Oman, he said he remembered the conversation with Jon a couple of weelcs earlier, and that he would check on the situation. We have not received a satisfactory resolution to the drainage issue. •