TC 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~L~ First on the agenda was Fran Whittington, 751 Springmill Drive, requesting the town look at the problem with the ditch behind their home. Mr. Currens said that he and Mr. Beikman had gone out and walked the ditch, inspected the property on the other side, where there is a retention area where the water comes through and it is the same pipe that has always been there. In walking the ditch it appears to have the same depth for the first few hundred yards, then there is a ruck area then it just drops off immediately where it is eroded and the depth is extreme. He searched the records in the County and their subdivision has covenants and restrictions that go with the land, so as property owners, when you buy the property you are subject to those covenants and restrictions. The Town has an obligation on town property to maintain it, an private property it. not only does not have an obligation, it has a duty to not spend taxpayers money on your property. In their particular instance in the covenants there is a paragraph that addresses the ditches and swales and in particulaz it places the burden of maintenance of the ditches and swales on each of the owners of all the lots in the development. In other words as your property goes back that's an easement, and the portion of the easement you own you have an obligation to maintain. So as you go through that subdivision there is probably some homeowners that have not been maintaining their ditch the way they are suppose to maintain it. He is not knowledgeable enough in that area to tell them precisely hears what's creating you problem. He can see there is a problem, in walking and looking can see it getting extremely deep and narrowed somewhat. But the Town cannot go out there and correct the problem. It is like asking the town to come and fix a sewer lateral on your property, because yon are homeowner. Here it is even a little worse than that, because there is a written document when you purchase the property on record saying that as a homeowner when you buy this property like any other homeowner you have an obligation to maintain that drainage ditch and it is not being done. The homeowner said that at that time there was not a drainage ditch, but all yard. They say there was no drainage and they all had backyards until Rooker Run and Rooker Trace was built, If they had known this would happen would they have bought or signed any papers or anything, no they would not. Mr. Currens said he did not doubt that was the case, the problem he has with that is that his job is to inform the Board what he thinks their duties are under this law. When they bought their property regardless whether or not there was a problem, there was a plat that showed a drainage easement across there, and there was an obligation in the written covenant and restrictions that ran with that plat that put the obligation for maintenance of that drainage area on the homeowner. So when they bought they bought, with being placed on notice that anyone purchasing that there is a drainage azea in back of the property and needs to be maintained and if it borders my property it becomes my obligation and responsibility. They said in their letter it said it would not cause any destruction to then property. He asked what letter. The letter they received when they were putting in Rooker Run and Rooker Trace. He said they were talking about two different things and asked what they were talking about. They were talking about Raaker Run and Rooker Trace Subdivision and he said he was talking about the covenant and restrictions of their subdivision. They asked who gave permission far Rooker Run and Rooker Trace to be built, and he said they went before the Plan Commission and they approved the plat. They asked that if it would not have been in the best interest of the homeowners to do something so they would not have the problem they have now, was there nit a bigger system they could have put in. Mr. Currens said that looking at it from that point of view when they put that subdivision in they actually diverted some of their drainage in a different direction, so all the property that use to drain into that flows in a different direction. Secondly, they put in a retention pond and he went up and looked at that and the pipe that went under that road if the same pipe that had always been there. Tn the past there has been times when that overflowed, we inherited that from the county, but that doesn't cure the problem, your problem is several hundred yards on down where it starts burrowing and going deep, he does not know if it is the way it is maintained he can't give them an answer to that. Mr. Currens does not think they are pulling more water that they use to, obviously they have a problem, whether the problem was created by the construction of homes in their area or how the back area has been maintained. Before he thought it was pretty much of an open ditch type drainage swale and now they have areas there where people have built mini.-barns all the way to the back very close to the ditch, and all those things affect the drainage. Mrs. Atwood, 721 Springmill Drive, asked what if one of her trees fell and caused the water to back the other way, who was responsible. Mr. Currens said that she would be responsible to maintain that portion of the ditch and if a tree fell on it would be her obligation to see that the tree was removed. She asked if she could dam it up next to the culvert and he said no, because it was a written easement. She asked if she got an attorney was there anything that could be done. He said that his job was to represent the Town Council.