Chair moves to allow existing shed to remain in utility easement, with condition

The Grantsville planning board considered a request to allow an existing shed to remain within a public utility/storm-drain easement at a property referenced in the discussion as 630 Jodi Lane. Chair (Speaker 2) moved to grant a variance with the condition that the shed be removed if utility work or repairs require access.

Staff member (Speaker 1) told the board that "there is a utility line that does run right down this property line here" and noted a 12-foot storm drain/utility easement adjacent to the shed. Board members emphasized that the shed is not permanently poured on concrete, and therefore could be moved if necessary; Speaker 1 confirmed it is not on a concrete pad.

The applicant (Resident, Speaker 3) and board members discussed the shed's age and placement; members said previous owners had placed it and that it appears to have been in place for roughly three to four years. The board debated remaining clearance, with measurements cited in discussion (board members referenced roughly 12–14 feet of easement width and some segments mentioned "6 foot and 5 and a half foot" in context of clearances).

Chair (Speaker 2) proposed a conditional approach during deliberations: allow the shed to remain but require relocation if utilities must run through or repairs are required. "We're gonna make a motion that we allow the variance to keep the shed where it is encroaching on that easement," the Chair said; the motion was seconded. The transcript does not include a recorded vote or final tally, and no formal approval is documented in the available record.

The board did not record specific conditions beyond the relocation requirement in the event of utility work; staff flagged the presence of active utility lines along the property as the principal reason the condition is necessary. The matter may reappear if utilities require access or if additional evidence about the easement or neighboring concerns is submitted.