Applicants Response to Staff Report - CCMachelle Hill
From:
Bill Parsons
Sent:
Monday, February 02, 2015 11:08 AM
To:
Machelle Hill; Jacy Jones; Jaycee Holman
Subject:
FW: Easement Vacation - Vac -15-001
Good Morning City Clerks,
Below are comments from the applicant regarding the Denison vacation application.
Thanks,
Bill Parsons, AICP
Planning Supervisor
Community Development Department
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
PHONE: (208) 884-5533
FAX: (208) 888-6854
bparso�ns@meridiancity.org
From: Pat Tealey [mailto:ptealey@tealeys.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:19 PM
To: Bill Parsons
Cc: Kevin Denison
Subject: FW: Easement Vacation - Vac -15-001
From: Pat Tealey
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 1:05 PM
To:'Kevin Denison'
Subject: Easement Vacation - Vac -15-00
Bill
The applicant agrees with staff comments except for the requirement of an additional easement along the North
boundary of Parcel C. The stated reason is for "Public Utility, Drainage and Irrigation. The applicant objects to the
easement for the following reasons.
Public Utilities
There are no existing utilities that need to be "protected" by an easement and the utilities that are vacating the
easement that is the subject of this application have not expressed a desire or need for a new easement to
replace the one that is being vacated.
2. Drainage
There are no existing drainage facilities in this area.
The applicant cannot create an easement on his own land so the only benefactor of the proposed easement is
the owner of the property to the North. If this easement were to be granted it would allow the neighbor to the
North to drain water from his property onto Parcel C. I think we would all agree that is not a good situation or
intention.
The easements throughout the subdivision that are granted by Note No. 12 on Page 10 of the Plat are for a
Public Utility Easement only. There is no mention of a drainage or irrigation being a component of the easement.
Irrigation.
There are no existing or planned irrigation facilities in this area.
In summary the granting of an additional easement is not needed by any of the utilities that could possibly use it. The
"drainage" notation of the easement would only benefit the neighbor to the North ( being able to drain water onto this
property) which is prohibited and would most likely end with lawyers involved. This would be the only property line in
the entire subdivision with a "Drainage and Irrigation" restriction.
Respectfully
Patrick A. Tealey PLS # 4347