Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7.02: Adopt Resolution #21-183 Denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an <br />attached accessory structure in a drainage and utility easement at 16206 Sapphire <br />Street NW; Case of William Cowette (Proj. 21-119) <br /> <br />Bria Raines, Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed an easement encroachment application <br />for an attached accessory structure in the drainage utility easement at 16206 Sapphire Street NW. <br />The applicant is proposing to keep an existing deck in its current placement, which has been <br />discovered to be in violation of work without a permit and encroachment of a drainage and utility <br />easement. <br /> <br />Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Raines stated the applicant applied for a building permit in <br />2017, which was denied due to the easement encroachment. A survey was included in the permit <br />documentation that provided an option for a deck that would be located outside the easement area, <br />but the applicant continued to build the deck without a permit and against City Staff <br />recommendations. In the survey, a staff note indicates “no part of a future deck can encroach on <br />the drainage and utility easement”. <br /> <br />Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Raines stated City Staff are not supportive of approval of a deck <br />that was built inside the easement encroachment without a permit, as it could set a precedent. She <br />added the deck does not meet the standards of the City Code to which the rest of the neighborhood <br />is held. She noted City Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 21-182 denying an easement <br />encroachment agreement for an attached accessory structure at 16206 Sapphire Street NW. <br /> <br />Bill Cowette, 16206 Sapphire Street, stated the deck was already built before he realized that he <br />needed a permit. He added he purchased the home at 16206 Sapphire Street NW after it was <br />completed, and the property has a very small and irregular shaped backyard, with an easement line <br />only inches from the house. He noted the wetland buffer was repealed and he was able to grade <br />and sod to get a reasonable sized back yard but still not a lot of space. <br /> <br />Mr. Cowette stated they decided to add a deck in 2017, and due to the layout of the home and its <br />windows as well as the small usable yard space, there were very few options for placement of a <br />deck. He added the deck was completed, with the exception of one railing section, before he <br />received a correction notice that a building permit was required. He noted City Staff were helpful <br />and wanted to help him resolve the issue, and he was told this would require a vote from the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Cowette stated he was notified later that the City Council had not approved the encroachment <br />agreement, but he never heard anything more about it. He added he recently received a letter in <br />the mail that the issue was never resolved. <br /> <br />Mr. Cowette showed photos of the elevated deck, including approximate location of the utility <br />easement line. He added the deck was built with 2-foot pillars on diamond pier fittings located <br />either on or over the easement line. He noted the pillars have no impact on the area’s drainage and <br />should not affect utility lines. <br /> <br />City Council / July 27, 2021 <br />Page 12 of 25 <br /> <br /> <br />