City, developer dispute flood control requirements.

Byline: Development Report by The Register-Guard

LINE IN THE SAND: A dispute between the city of Springfield and the developer of the 113-lot Levi Landing subdivision in northeast Springfield could force the relocation or removal of a partially built home in the development.

The disagreement centers on differing interpretations of flood protection measures that the developer, the James A. Paulson Trust, agreed to perform in order to proceed with the subdivision, which sits north of Thurston Road between 67th and 69th streets.

Attorneys for Springfield contend the house, at 6748 Jacob Lane, has been built in an area at the northern tip of the subdivision that the developer agreed to set aside to help slow floodwaters should the McKenzie River jump its banks. An attorney for the trust contends the city is changing the rules after approving the subdivision and issuing building permits.

The dispute goes back to 1998, when Eugene developer James Paulson applied to build a second addition to Levi Landing. Paulson died later that year, but his estate continued the project. About 80 percent of the lots have been sold.

Citing fears of flood damage as a result of more streets in the area south of the river, the Thurston Rural Neighbors appealed a hearings official's tentative approval of the development to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

In 2000, the city, the neighborhood group and the trust reached a settlement that ended the appeal and led to tentative approval of the project.

As part of the settlement, the trust agreed to install a small berm or dike at the north edge of the subdivision that neighbors wanted in order to slow floodwaters. The trust also agreed to a "no-build, no-fill" line at the northern edge that prohibited development, essentially creating a conservation area.

The city contends a condition of the subdivision's approval was that a 10-foot-wide easement (in which no structures could be placed) would stretch south from the no-build, no-fill line.

Therein lies the problem.

"They built the berm as required, did everything they were supposed to do, then they put a house there that tears right through the berm," said Meg Kieran, an attorney for the city. "The integrity of the berm for flood control is critical."

Kieran said the house's balcony extends over the easement. The city about three months ago ordered a stop to all work on the home.

Michael Farthing, a land-use attorney representing the trust, said Monday that the city is misinterpreting the hearings official's decision. He said the 10-foot easement lies to the north of the no-build line, rather than to the south, as the city contends. He said an easement stretching south from the no-build line would affect nine or 10 lots. "It's a phantom easement," Farthing said. "It's not there."

Furthermore, he said, the city has already given final approval to the subdivision and issued a building permit for the house - making it too late to appeal.

The issue is now in the hands of Lane County Circuit Court, where a judge will review the record and decide who is right.

Compiled by business reporter Joe Harwood.