Planning staff recommended approval of a variance for a lot where an existing easement lies entirely on a neighbor’s property, and the planning body approved the motion by voice vote (tally not specified).

Staff said the property line and easement have been in place since 2014 and that, because the easement already exists, staff did not oppose the variance and recommended approval with the standard conditions in the staff report. "The property line has been in the in existence since 2014. As the easement is existing, staff does not oppose the variance," the planning staff said.

Kelsey McGaties, the engineer on the project, told the body the easement shown on the submitted materials is entirely on the neighbor’s property and that none of it is on the parcel proposed for development. "The easement as shown in yellow is entirely on the neighbor's property. Not a single part of it is on the property that is being developed," McGaties said, adding that the adjacent property owner was unwilling to revise the easement to meet current regulations.

A motion "to approve with the variance" was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The meeting record shows members said "aye" and the chair declared the motion passed; the transcript does not include a numerical vote tally.

No other conditions or follow-up tasks were recorded on the motion beyond the staff-recommended standard conditions.