Portland administrative hearing office denies permit review challenge over drainage sketch

The Portland administrative hearing office denied Evan Caldwell’s request to require City of Portland Permit Services to promptly review his permit application without treating a drainage sketch as missing, or alternatively to provide a clearer written explanation of the requirement. The hearing office held that the City could keep the application in completeness review based on its request for drainage information.

The formal judgment found that Caldwell had not proved his fair-notice claim. It also found that the City had not rejected the project outright, but had issued a completeness notice seeking additional material before review could continue.

No monetary award was made. The application remains subject to the City’s completeness review based on the drainage-information request in the record.

• Caldwell’s claim was denied.
• The City of Portland Permit Services prevailed.
• No monetary award was made.
• The permit application may remain in completeness review pending the drainage-information request.

The hearing office identified two questions: whether the City could require drainage details and whether it gave clear notice that a separate drainage sketch was required before review was paused. It held that the first issue was not disputed in substance, while Caldwell bore the burden on the fair-notice issue because he sought relief on that basis.

The office relied principally on the April 18 completeness notice and Caldwell’s submitted site plan. The notice stated that the application was incomplete and requested a drainage sketch showing anticipated runoff direction before review could continue. The site plan showed the house, proposed shed and fence line, with a note that the yard slopes toward the alley.

The hearing office accepted that the plan contained some drainage-related information. But it held that the slope note did not establish that the City had accepted the information as sufficient for drainage review. The checklist printout, which called for a site plan showing proposed work and relevant site conditions but did not mention a drainage sketch, showed broad wording but did not prevent the City from seeking further detail.

Under the supplied code provisions, permit issuance depended on the City Administrator being satisfied that proposed work conformed with applicable City requirements. The judgment also referred to completeness and stormwater-and-drainage requirements as permitting the City to seek drainage-related details where applicable.

The hearing office concluded that the record did not contain an earlier instruction requiring a separate sketch, but also did not show that Caldwell’s slope note satisfied the City’s drainage-review requirement. It found that the April 18 email sufficiently supported the City’s position that the application was incomplete.

“That is enough to support the City’s position that the application was incomplete, but not enough to prove Evan’s fair-notice claim.”

Caldwell submitted that he had followed the public checklist and filed a site plan showing the proposed shed and the yard’s slope. He argued that the City later imposed a more specific demand for a separate drainage sketch without explaining why the filed plan was inadequate or identifying the precise missing detail.

He sought either prompt review without treating the sketch as missing or, at minimum, a clear written explanation of the exact drainage requirement. Caldwell did not dispute that the City could request drainage-related information, but maintained that applicants should be told clearly what additional information is required before review is stopped.

The City submitted that it had not rejected Caldwell’s project. It said the April 18 communication was a completeness notice and that the hand-drawn site sketch, including the note that the yard slopes toward the alley, did not provide enough information to assess drainage impacts.

The City relied on the April 18 notice and the code provision cited in the hearing, which made permit issuance contingent on the City Administrator being satisfied that proposed work complied with applicable City requirements. It sought denial of Caldwell’s request and continuation of the hold pending drainage information.

“The dispute is about whether that was sufficient—not whether he submitted nothing.”

Caldwell applied to City of Portland Permit Services for a permit concerning a project that included a proposed shed. His application packet included a hand-drawn lot sketch showing the house, shed and fence line, along with the notation that the yard slopes toward the alley.

On April 18, Permit Services sent a completeness notice stating that the application was incomplete and requesting a drainage sketch showing anticipated runoff direction before review could continue. Caldwell relied on a saved public checklist stating that applicants should provide a site plan showing proposed work and relevant site conditions; the checklist did not use the phrase “drainage sketch.”

The record did not establish that the City had instructed Caldwell before April 18 to submit a separate drainage sketch. Nor did it establish that the existing site-plan notation was sufficient for the City’s drainage review. The outcome resolves Caldwell’s request on the available record and leaves the application subject to the City’s stated completeness process.