Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows developer limited encroachment for Kersner Commons sewer work
Summary
Grant County drainage board voted to permit a developer to place sanitary‑sewer manhole access and a temporary 30‑ft working right‑of‑way inside the 75‑ft Jefferson Ditch easement for Kersner Commons phase 2A; the approval requires the developer to restore grading and pay costs. One board member opposed.
Andrea Masvero, a representative of 1846 Enterprises, told the Grant County Drainage Board that her firm is working with Taylor University on Kersner Commons phase 2A, a planned 22‑lot residential subdivision in the Jefferson Ditch watershed. "We know how important farmland is and these drains are," Masvero said, and said engineers were hired to minimize impacts.
Engineer Eric Washam described the request as a minor encroachment to install sanitary sewer manholes and a temporary working strip to trench and maintain the sewer line. "Effectively, we would just be looking for an encroachment into the legal drain just to install the sewer," he said, and said the contractor would restore surface grading and provide erosion controls once work is complete.
Board members asked whether the work would cross the open ditch and about the location and elevation of manholes; Washam and Masvero said the manholes would be buried except for access lids and would not reduce the board's 75‑foot easement. The developer said the typical working width requested for trenching would be about 30 feet to allow trenching and future maintenance.
After discussion of easement limits and assurances that the developer would restore grading and seed disturbed areas, a board member moved "we allow them to place their manhole covers in our 75 ft easement along the Jefferson ditch at their cost." The motion was seconded and, after a voice vote in which one member opposed, the board carried the motion.
The approval covers the specific encroachment described for phase 2A; the developers told the board a future phase (2B) would return for separate approval where a road crossing is proposed. The board recorded concerns about maintenance responsibility and noted the developer's statement that the homeowners association and/or 1846 Enterprises would maintain stormwater features and that the developer would provide contract language ensuring restoration.
The board did not approve any road crossing at this meeting and directed staff to retain a record of the developer's plans and the restoration commitments.
