Council delays decision after resident’s pool is found 3 feet onto city land

Wellsville — The Wellsville City Council on April 16 agreed to continue discussion and seek legal review after resident Cody Frederick told the council an in-ground pool he had installed at 430 South Center sits about three feet inside land the city considers its property.

The council did not approve permanent relief at the meeting but instructed staff and the city attorney to draft a written agreement for the council to review. Council members and city enforcement staff discussed options including a recorded agreement that would require the owner to move or repair improvements at his expense if utilities or a future buyer required the land.

Frederick said he set the pool based on a GPS reading and an online parcel map and later had a survey crew find property markers that showed the pool edge three feet inside the city line. "That's what I would ask that we can get approved. I'm not making big mess," Frederick told the council, describing the pool cover and concrete pad he plans around it.

Kurt, the city's enforcement officer, warned about precedent if the council allowed one homeowner to keep permanent improvements on city land. "The only thing that I would say is if we do that for Cody ... this will kind of be an accordion deal," he said, noting other nearby structures also encroach on city property after surveys.

Council members discussed technical fixes and limits on permanence. Staff and contractors described the pool pad as about 3 to 5 inches of gravel topped by a 5-inch concrete path, a rock retaining wall roughly 1.5 feet high, and a pool housing unit about 5 feet wide. Frederick said removing and resetting the pool would be costly and estimated his contractor's delay costs at about $300 per day.

Planning staff cited the city code on easements, pointing to Wellsville City Code section 11-5-9-9, which requires a 10-foot-wide utility access easement in front-yard setbacks and permits side and rear easements when the city deems them necessary. The code provision was central to the council's authority to decide whether a utility easement or other restriction was required behind Frederick's lot.

Council members proposed workarounds that would avoid a permanent conveyance of land: recording a binding agreement in the Cache County Recorder's Office that would run with the deed and require the homeowner to remove or relocate the concrete if utilities or a future owner required it; pouring concrete with a pre-cut joint along the property line to make later removal easier; or having Frederick buy or trade adjacent sliver parcels if feasible. A city council member said any recorded agreement would be routed through the city attorney for review before returning to the council.

Mayor and council discussion acknowledged past enforcement actions, including a prior case in which a property owner moved a shed after a survey showed encroachment. Several council members expressed concern about setting a precedent that would encourage additional encroachments along the same boundary.

A motion to continue the discussion pending preparation of a legal agreement and review by the city attorney passed at the meeting. No final permission or binding change to property lines was granted; Frederick was instructed to provide documentation to the city attorney so the item could return to the council for consideration at an upcoming meeting.

The council directed staff to have a draft agreement and legal recommendation available for the next practicable agenda; council members indicated they would place the item on the next available regular meeting once the attorney had reviewed the draft.