HomeMy WebLinkAboutLETTER Notes on Deck 1945 Gray Hawk Ct 2022-01-041-04-2022
HABITAT – GREY HAWK, NOTES/THOUGHTS:
NORTH DECK (1945) ENCROACHMENT:
• THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL (8%) ENCROACHMENT OF 0.8’ (10”) INTO A 10’ WIDE UTILITY
EASEMENT AND BUILDING ENVELOPE.
• THE 10” IS TO THE N.W. CONCRETE PIER CORNER. THE PIER HOLDS UP THE WOODEN DECK.
• THE ACTUAL N.W. WOODEN DECK CORNER IS ONLY 6” INTO THE EASEMENT/ENVELOPE.
• THESE KINDS OF ENCROACHMENTS ARE NOT UNCOMMON. IT WAS SHOWN ON THE I.L.C. FOR
FINANCING AND DID NOT HOLD UP ANYTHING.
• THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TAKES THE RISK OF HAVING AN ENCROACHMENT INTO AN
EASEMENT LIKE THIS. SHOULD THE FULL WIDTH OF THE EASEMENT BE NEEDED, THE
ENCROACHMENT WOULD/COULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED. THIS IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN
MY EXPERIENCE. NORMALLY, THE UTILITY COMPANIES WORK AROUND MINOR
ENCROACHMENTS LIKE THIS.
• THE UTILITIES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BUILT OUT. WHILE LOT 2A IS NOT BUILT OUT, THIS
10’ UTILITY EASEMENT EXTENDS SOUTH FROM LOT 2A, AND IT DOES CONNECT TO ANOTHER,
LARGER UTILITY EASEMENT WHICH GIVES ANY FUTURE UTILITY USE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN
PLACING THEIR UTILITY (IF THAT EVER HAPPENS).
• MY (LONNIE’S) OPINION IS THAT THIS ENCROACHMENT SHOULD BE OVERLOOKED BY THE
TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT. IT IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUE AND COMPLETED
CONSTRUCTION. SEEMS LIKE THEY COULD WRITE SOME KINE OF DISCLAIMER NOTE STATING
THEIR AWARENESS (BASED ON THE MAPPING PROVIDED) AND LET IT GO AS A RISK TO THE
HOMEOWNER NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. WE SHOULD REVIEW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR
THE WORK AGAINST WHAT IS SHOWN HERE AND NOW.
• MY (LONNIE’S) OPINION IS THAT THIS IS NOT A TERRIBLE “FIX” IF HABITAT DOES WANT TO
CLEAR THE EASEMENT WITH THE DECK CORNER. THE CONCRETE PIER WOULD HAVE TO GO AND
THE WOODEN DECK CORNER MODIFIED (FRAMING AND DECKING). THERE IS NO ROOF OVER
THIS PORTION OF THE DECK TO DEAL WITH. A SECOND PIER JUST EAST OF THE EXISTING ONE
COULD BE POURED AND ORIENTED TO CLEAR THE EASEMENT, BUT WORK WITH THE FRAMING
CHANGES NEEDED.
• FIXING THE DECK CORNER IN THE EASEMENT LEAVES THE N.E. HOUSE EAVE CORNER INTO THE
10’ EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOT 1B. OTHER EAVES ARE ALSO OVER THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE LINES (FOR LOTS 1A AND 1B). RANDY HUNT’S LETTER OF 5-10-2019 IS HELPFUL. IN
THAT HE CONCLUDES THE EAVES FOR LOT 1A, BEING OVER THE BUILDING ENVELOPE LINES AND
EASEMENTS ARE, “NOT A MATTER OF CONCERN”.
12” STORMWATER CULVERT CHANGE:
• THE ORIGINAL ORIENTATION OF THIS CULVERT WAS TO FLOW WEST TO EAST. IT GOT
PLACED FOR SOUTH TO NORTH DRAINAGE FLOW.
• THERE WAS NO INITIAL DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE OUTLET OF THIS CULVERT IF IT
WERE PLACED FOR WEST TO EAST DRAINAGE.
• THERE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT THE OUTFALL OF THE EXISTING CULVERT AND THAT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT COVERS PART OF LOT 1A, BUT NOT TOTALLY WHERE THE CULVERT
ORIGINATES. IT IS COVERED BY EASEMENT WHERE IT OUTFALLS. THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL
DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR LOTS 1A AND 1B NORTH OF THE BORDER OF LOTS 1A AND 1B.
• THERE IS NO CONCENTRATED FLOW FROM THE CULVERT THAT FOLLOWS THE PATH OF THE
EASEMENT NORTH AND THEN EAST OF LOT 1B, HOWEVER THERE IS AN EASEMENT “PATH”
IN THAT DIRECTION ON THE PLAT. WHEN LOT 2A (NORTH OF LOT 1B) IS DEVELOPED, THE
STORMWATER MAY HAVE TO BE RE-DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THIS EASEMENT “PATH”.