Drainage issues

[gorja]

Over the last few years, the town engineer, highway superintendent and current Code enforcement officer have been trying to fix drainage issues
in drainage easements. Most of these issues were caused by sheds and other buildings or yard accessories being built in drainage easements
allowed by the previous code enforcement officer.

In the agenda for the October 10, ZBA meeting, there is an applicant seeking a variance to build a 240 sq ft shed in a public drainage easement.
That's nuts. Or maybe he got caught with a shed already in the easement and is trying to make it within code via a variance.

I hope these ZBA members do vote 'No'

[Neubs24]

My yard, smaller than your average Lancaster yard already, is made smaller because of a drainage easement. Because of this I cannot have a shed or pool without significant yard reconstruction due to the way the previous owners laid out the patio and landscaping. I'd love to be able to put a shed and/or pool over the easement.

Untitled.jpg

[mark blazejewski]

My yard, smaller than your average Lancaster yard already, is made smaller because of a drainage easement. Because of this I cannot have a shed or pool without significant yard reconstruction due to the way the previous owners laid out the patio and landscaping. I'd love to be able to put a shed and/or pool over the easement.

Untitled.jpg

Neubs, on the east side of my lot, the VOL has a ten-foot N-S easement for drainage pipe; my neighbor holds a similar ten-foot eastward extension of my easement. We were able to put a fence directly on the lot line with the understanding if necessity should require, the fence would come down for work purposes.

Provided that the shed is erected upon a floating concrete slab or some other material, and not on a conventional three-foot deep concrete foundation, would it not fit the definition of a non-permanent entity such as a fence?

I know I am impacted by village codes and I presume that you live in the town, but I am just throwing that out there for your consideration.

[gorja]

My yard, smaller than your average Lancaster yard already, is made smaller because of a drainage easement. Because of this I cannot have a shed or pool without significant yard reconstruction due to the way the previous owners laid out the patio and landscaping. I'd love to be able to put a shed and/or pool over the easement.

Untitled.jpg

The property owner requesting the variance currently has a shed on the property whether it's in a drainage easement, I don't know.

[Dan Roman]

Over the last few years, the town engineer, highway superintendent and current Code enforcement officer have been trying to fix drainage issues
in drainage easements. Most of these issues were caused by sheds and other buildings or yard accessories being built in drainage easements
allowed by the previous code enforcement officer.

In the agenda for the October 10, ZBA meeting, there is an applicant seeking a variance to build a 240 sq ft shed in a public drainage easement.
That's nuts. Or maybe he got caught with a shed already in the easement and is trying to make it within code via a variance.

I hope these ZBA members do vote 'No'

I don’t understand how building a shed on a drainage easement is causing drainage problems. The easement is there because a pipe runs underground and if the town or whoever needs access then they are able to without much hindrance.

[Neubs24]

Neubs, on the east side of my lot, the VOL has a ten-foot N-S easement for drainage pipe; my neighbor holds a similar ten-foot eastward extension of my easement. We were able to put a fence directly on the lot line with the understanding if necessity should require, the fence would come down for work purposes.

Provided that the shed is erected upon a floating concrete slab or some other material, and not on a conventional three-foot deep concrete foundation, would it not fit the definition of a non-permanent entity such as a fence?

I know I am impacted by village codes and I presume that you live in the town, but I am just throwing that out there for your consideration.

Honestly haven't bothered looking into it, mostly because even if I could go over the easement then leveling the area would be an issue too, and it would take a huge chunk of my yard away. Because of the easement, my yard slopes away from the house to the easement then rises back up to the fence line. Poor planning by Marrano when they built the neighborhood. Had the Mohawk Place street not been planned, they could've shifted my house and the houses across the street and given us all bigger lots. Instead the ones across the street were able to purchase the planned lots at bargain basement prices and significantly improve their home value and lot size.

[gorja]

I don’t understand how building a shed on a drainage easement is causing drainage problems. The easement is there because a pipe runs underground and if the town or whoever needs access then they are able to without much hindrance.

I believe the town at the moment has an issue with a swale near Peterbrook Circle was discussed at a work session on August.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Chapter 50 -17A -5 of the zoning code [Added 12-3-2018 by L.L. No. 7-2018] reads:

All structures other than fencing are hereby prohibited within any drainage or access easement.

This was most likely added to eliminate misconceptions by the property owner that it is his responsibility to remove / replace the fence, shed, whatever to provide access to the town to correct the drainage issue located in the easement – not at the town’s expense. It is much easier to remove / replace a fence.

It will be interesting whether the ZBA finds a satisfactory ‘condition’ to grant the variance.

[mark blazejewski]

Chapter 50 -17A -5 of the zoning code [Added 12-3-2018 by L.L. No. 7-2018] reads:

All structures other than fencing are hereby prohibited within any drainage or access easement.

This was most likely added to eliminate misconceptions by the property owner that it is his responsibility to remove / replace the fence, shed, whatever to provide access to the town to correct the drainage issue located in the easement – not at the town’s expense. It is much easier to remove / replace a fence.

It will be interesting whether the ZBA finds a satisfactory ‘condition’ to grant the variance.

Thanx for posting Lee.

[gorja]

Chapter 50 -17A -5 of the zoning code [Added 12-3-2018 by L.L. No. 7-2018] reads:

All structures other than fencing are hereby prohibited within any drainage or access easement.

This was most likely added to eliminate misconceptions by the property owner that it is his responsibility to remove / replace the fence, shed, whatever to provide access to the town to correct the drainage issue located in the easement – not at the town’s expense. It is much easier to remove / replace a fence.

It will be interesting whether the ZBA finds a satisfactory ‘condition’ to grant the variance.

As always, Lee, thank you for the clarification

[Lee Chowaniec]

Over the last few years, the town engineer, highway superintendent and current Code enforcement officer have been trying to fix drainage issues
in drainage easements. Most of these issues were caused by sheds and other buildings or yard accessories being built in drainage easements
allowed by the previous code enforcement officer.

In the agenda for the October 10, ZBA meeting, there is an applicant seeking a variance to build a 240 sq ft shed in a public drainage easement.
That's nuts. Or maybe he got caught with a shed already in the easement and is trying to make it within code via a variance.

I hope these ZBA members do vote 'No'

The variance petition was denied.

[gorja]

The variance petition was denied.

That's GREAT.

[gorja]

Lee,
Was it a unanimous vote to deny?
I tried listening to the recording but it is only a 1 second recording. So no info.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee,
Was it a unanimous vote to deny?
I tried listening to the recording but it is only a 1 second recording. So no info.

Don't know. Did not ask the individual who was at the ZBA meeting about the count.