Original in-game verdict

1. Background. Evan Caldwell applied for a permit from the City of Portland Permit Services. The dispute is about drainage information. Evan says he used the public checklist, filed a site plan, and was later told the application was incomplete because it needed a separate drainage sketch. The City says it did not reject the project outright; it issued a completeness notice because the submission did not provide enough information to review drainage impacts. 2. Issues for determination. The hearing turns on two issues. First, whether drainage details could be required at all. Second, whether the City gave clear notice that a separate drainage sketch was required before review was paused. The first issue is shared by both sides. The second issue is on Evan Caldwell, because he is the party asking for relief based on lack of fair notice. 3. Submissions of the parties. Evan says the checklist called for a site plan showing proposed work and relevant site conditions, and his filed plan already showed the shed and noted that the yard slopes toward the alley. He says the City’s later email asked for a drainage sketch but did not explain why the filed plan was not enough. The City says the April 18 email was a completeness notice, not a rejection, and that permit approval depends on compliance with City requirements. It says the packet did not give enough information to review drainage impacts. 4. Evidence and findings. The most important documents are the April 18 completeness notice and the submitted site plan. The notice states that the application is incomplete and requests a drainage sketch showing anticipated runoff direction before review can continue. The site plan shows the house, proposed shed, fence line, and a note that the yard slopes toward the alley. That proves Evan submitted some drainage-related information. It does not prove that the City had already accepted that information as sufficient. The checklist printout says applicants should provide a site plan showing proposed work and relevant site conditions, but it does not use the phrase drainage sketch. That helps Evan show the wording was broad, but it does not prove the City was barred from asking for more detail. 5. Reasons. Under the supplied code, permit issuance depends on the City Administrator being satisfied that the proposed work conforms with applicable City requirements. The code also requires applications to meet Portland Permitting & Development completeness requirements, and the stormwater and drainage provisions require drainage-related details where applicable. So the City was allowed to ask for drainage information. The real question is notice. On that point, Evan needed to show that the City had clearly told him what was missing before stopping review, or that his filed plan already satisfied the requirement. The record does not show an earlier instruction requiring a separate drainage sketch. It also does not show that the slope note on the site plan was enough to satisfy the City’s drainage review. The April 18 email shows the City asked for a specific additional item. That is enough to support the City’s position that the application was incomplete, but not enough to prove Evan’s fair-notice claim. 6. Final order. Evan Caldwell’s claim is denied. The City of Portland Permit Services prevails. No monetary award is made. The application may remain subject to the City’s completeness review based on the drainage information request shown in the record.