Appeal 34834

Appeal Summary

Status: HOLD FOR ADDITIONAL INFO - RECONSIDERATION OF 34767

Appeal ID: 34834

Submission Date: 6/5/25 6:48 AM

Hearing Date: 6/11/25

Case #: P-1

Appeal Type: Plumbing

Project Type: residential

Building/Business Name: Faster Permits

Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal

Proposed use: Residential

Project Address: 8809 N Dwight Ave

Appellant Name: Zachary Horton

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-100195-SD

Stories: 2 Occupancy: R3 Construction Type: V-B

Fire Sprinklers: No

Plans Examiner/Inspector: James Betchel

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

Building Code Guide 03-11: Private Plumbing Easements

Requires

Min 5' easement without appeal

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Reduce allowed easement size to 3'

Proposed Design

Requesting a 3' wide easement for use by a single shared sewer line: 6" PVC or ABS

See 2/SP3 in the attached site plans for the overall easement plan and location of the 3' utility easement area.

Reason for alternative

Original Text: Overall site design restricts easement size. Alternatively, we can run unit A to N Dwight and run B-D to Newman without the easement, but a combined sewer line through the easement is much more cost effective during construction.

Decision: "Reduce easement size to three feet from required ten feet: Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalency. Appellant may contact Jim Bechtel (503-823-7386) with questions."

Reconsideration Text: We have been unable to reach Jim Betchel to resolve our questions, so we are filing another appeal in order to receive direct feedback.

  • - - - - - -

Jim: There are two main items we consider the excavation itself/ undermining and the piping being subjected to building load. When we allow a 5ft easement without excavation we do not have to worry about undermining. In other appeals we may not have seen other available options, in this one we see options that would provide a better system.

Applicant: What is the better system you're seeing? From our perspective, there are no other feasible options.

Jim: Coming of off N Dwight with a lateral on either side of unit “A’ looks to have enough room to get wider easements.

Applicant: From a physical barrier perspective, the size of the easement doesn't change where the buildings are. The same clear area exists from foundation to foundation and the single sewer line itself is taking up only a portion of the easement (even at 3' wide)

On the north side of unit A, you can get 3'-10" from the eave of unit A to the patio of the existing house. This only occurs between the fireplace of unit A and the patio. On either side of this, the easement could be larger. If the easement is allowed under the eave from foundation to patio, we can give you 4'-4" (6" more).

On the south side of unit A, you can get 4' from eave to southern property line. This only occurs at the front porch. On either side of the porch, there is 5'+ clear. If the easement is allowed under the eave, we can give you 6' clear for the full length of unit A.

What would be approvable to you?

  • - - - - - - - -

We are happy to proceed with any of these options as the appeal board sees fit, but we need to know which is approved. Please identify the approved method of those I've outlined above in the appeal decision (if any are approvable).

Appeal Decision

Reduce easement size to four feet from required ten feet: Hold for more information.

"Appellant has been sent an email clarifying the additional information requested. For information about how to file a reconsideration go to https://www.portland.gov/ppd/file-appeal/appeal-process or email PPDAppeals@portlandoregon.gov.
"