In the midst of this year's winter storm, a sinkhole emerged right outside the Pickett residence in Ross. The town's immediate response was to instruct the residents to address the issue. However, Terry Pickett firmly believes it's the town's duty to rectify the situation. Read full article here.

This disagreement has now escalated to the Marin County Superior Court.

On August 24, Pickett initiated a lawsuit, asserting that the sinkhole at 61 Shady Lane falls under the town's jurisdiction. The lawsuit attributes the formation of the sinkhole, measuring approximately 5 feet by 8 feet, to the town's stormwater drainage system's inadequacies.

The lawsuit elaborates, “Due to the flawed design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the storm drainage system, the Plaintiff’s Property suffered damage from the loss of underlying support, leading to subsidence on the Property.”

Addressing the sinkhole is projected to incur expenses ranging from $15,000 to $25,000, as per a report from the town staff. Pickett is claiming a minimum of $750,000 in damages, attributing it to the diminished value of his property.

Despite attempts to reach out, neither Pickett nor his legal representative provided any comments.

The sinkhole's appearance on January 4 coincided with heavy rainfall, as detailed in the staff report. The following day, Richard Simonitch, Ross's public works director, inspected the site alongside Pickett.

Simonitch observed that although the sinkhole wasn't in close proximity to the paved roads of Shady Lane or Norwood Avenue, there was potential risk to the roads' structural integrity. He informed Pickett that the town would engage a geotechnical consultant to assess the situation and offer remedial suggestions.

By January 6, Simonitch had communicated to Pickett that the sinkhole was entirely within his property boundaries, making it Pickett's responsibility. The town further confirmed that there were no utility issues, such as sewage or water leaks, in the vicinity, and the roads remained unaffected. Three days later, Miller Pacific Engineering Group was commissioned for a geotechnical evaluation.

The consultancy recommended filling the sinkhole with a blend of concrete or expandable foam, followed by a sand and gravel solution, and the installation of drainage tubes for air and water circulation. The exact cause of the sinkhole remains uncertain, with possibilities ranging from an old well to decaying tree roots.

Miller Pacific's report emphasizes, “Given the rapid development of the sinkhole, which wasn't due to any pipe damage or water leakage, it's unlikely that any preventive measures could have been taken by a property owner, engineer, or contractor.”

By January 27, an arborist was brought in to inspect the nearby oak trees. Pickett received both reports via email on February 3.

From January 5 to August 1, the town consistently reminded Pickett of his obligation to address the sinkhole through letters and emails. By May 24, with no action taken, the town issued a formal notice to Pickett, setting a deadline for the commencement of repairs by June 24 and completion by August 24.

The town's stance is clear: if Pickett neither undertakes the repairs nor covers the costs, the town will bear the expenses and subsequently seek reimbursement. In such a scenario, the expenses will be sourced from the town's general fund.

Christa Johnson, the Town Manager, refrained from commenting due to the ongoing legal proceedings.