Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends vacating 10-foot platted easement to allow storm‑pipe replacement
Summary
City staff told the Planning and Zoning Board that a 1966 storm pipe crossing Lots 31 and 32 needs replacement; the board recommended Resolution 2026-03 to vacate a 10‑foot platted easement conditioned on the property owner granting the city a new easement.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the City Council consider Resolution 2026‑03 to vacate a 10‑foot platted easement running between Lot 31 and Lot 32 in Harbor Heights, city staff said.
Tim Carla, the city’s capital projects director and stormwater manager, told the board the pipe running through the rear of the properties was installed in 1966 and “needs to be replaced so that Harbor Heights will continue to flow properly.” He said he has written confirmations from utility companies that no utility easements occupy the 10‑foot area except for a 7½‑foot FPL overhead easement along Lot 32.
Carla said the current property owner, identified in staff remarks as Mr. Fields, has agreed in principle to convey new five‑foot easements on each lot (5 feet on Lot 31 and 5 feet on Lot 32) so the city would obtain a permanent city easement to access, maintain and replace the drainage as needed. Staff described the existing conveyance as an exchange: the city would vacate the platted 10‑foot rear easement in return for the new city easement. City staff described the pipe as transitioning from a 12‑inch corrugated pipe upstream to a 30‑inch reinforced‑concrete pipe where it discharges, and said replacement work requires clear maintenance/access rights.
Board members asked whether the narrative language in the packet matched the operative resolution and whether the vacate should explicitly reference a “public drainage and utility easement.” Staff confirmed the board’s recommendation to council is conditional: the resolution will not be taken to council for final action until the property owner signs the proposed easement agreement granting the city ingress, egress and maintenance authority.
The board moved to recommend Resolution 2026‑03 and voted in favor; all members present voted to recommend the measure to city council.
The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Staff said final action by council will not occur until the property owner executes the new easement agreement.
