California Surveyors Forums

I have tun into a situation where a city planning official is holding an easement line as a property line for building setback determination. See says my client can't build with 10 feet (BSL distance) of the easement line.

The easement is 5 feet wide adjacent to the property line to accommodate an existing fence within the easement that neither of the parties, for their own reasons, want to move or rebuild on the actual property line.

Has anyone run into this before? It has always been my understanding and practice that contiguous easements adjacent to property lines don't move the BSL accordingly. Is there any planning law someone could point me to on the subject? The viability of my client's project hangs in the balance.

I've not run into the problem before, but I think the first thing I'd do is review the zoning ordinance to see how it defines building setbacks. Maybe the building official has wiggle room, maybe he doesn't, but you can't argue your case until you know what you're dealing with.

I've encountered BSL held from a multi-parcel private road easement line, but not side yard access and driveway easements. A fence easement is new to me. Is the other house at minimum setback to the fence instead of the property line?

Perhaps it is a consequence of fire code, which has setback requirements when the building has "openings" such as windows and doorways. The fence may be considered a structure for this purpose. Unlikely, though, because the inspector would have cited fire code.

Some time back a proposed lot split was denied because of a 5 ft wide drainage esmt along the side pl. Even though the esmt was within the sideyard setback the county removed this 5ft from the land area thereby reducing the sf to below the min required.

Welcome to no growth counties

Sounds like the fence maintenance easement may have been written to coincide with the minimum setback. Makes no sense to require an additional 5', unless as Anthony said, it has something to do with fire code.