HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-07-125 - Encroachment Agreement - Existing Retaining Wall on Drainage Block/Public Walkway - 66 General Dr
)
I(mclm::>R
Services
Report To:
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Mayor and Members of Council
September 17, 2007
Lesley MacDonald
City Solicitor
Prepared By:
Lesley MacDonald
City Solicitor
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Ward 1
September 12, 2007
CRPS-07 -125
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REQUEST - EXISTING
RETAINING WALL ON DRAINAGE BLOCK/PUBLIC
WALKWAY FOR 66 GENERAL DR.
RECOMMENDATION:
"That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Encroachment Agreement,
satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the property owner(s) of the property municipally
known as 66 General Dr. (PIN 22343-0206), to legalize the existing retaining wall which
encroaches approximately 1.33m, more or less, onto Block 85, Registered Plan 1733,
being a drainage block/public walkway, once the property owner(s) of 66 General Dr. has
relocated the existing picket fence, which encroaches on Block 85, Registered Plan 1733,
back to 66 General Dr."
REPORT:
The homeowners of 66 General Dr. have requested permission to legalize an existing picket
fence and retaining wall located over a portion of City owned land being Block 85, Plan 1733 as
shown on the attached sketch. Block 85 was conveyed to the City as a drainage block and
public walkway. The walkway is for the future possibility of acquiring the Laurel Creek lands to
the rear of General Dr., however, the primary use of this block is as a drainage block providing
an overland flow route for storm water from the subdivision to Laurel Creek.
Staff do not support the existing fence encroachment on Block 85 and require that the fence be
relocated to the homeowners' property at 66 General Dr. However, staff do support legalization
of the existing retaining wall. The retaining wall runs along the rear of the property and extends
approximately 1 .33m into Block 85. It is constructed of interlocking retaining blocks and is
approximately 1 m in height. Removal of the wall would be difficult due to the interlocking blocks
and problematic due to the height difference in the property.
It would be necessary to relocate the fence to 66 General Dr. prior to the City entering into an
encroachment agreement with the homeowners for the retaining wall.
CONCLUSION:
The appropriate staff has reviewed this request and has no concerns with entering into an
encroachment agreement with the property owner(s) of 66 General Dr. for the purpose of
legalizing the existing retaining wall located on City property, provided the fence is relocated off
City property.
LESLEY MacDONALD
City Solicitor
LM:sh
Attach.
cc: P. Wetherup
D. Locke
G. Murphy