Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boundary Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit County to seek Morgan County cooperation to adjust historic county line at Pine Meadow Ranch
Summary
County staff presented a proposal to move the Summit–Morgan county boundary to match historic ridge‑line surveys across Pine Meadow Ranch Plat E and Plat G after survey errors left some lots split by the county line. Staff said 22 Summit County parcels would be affected and that public hearings in both counties will be required.
Summit County staff presented a boundary adjustment proposal Oct. 8 to correct survey errors that placed part of Pine Meadow Ranch Plat E and Plat G on the wrong side of the Summit–Morgan county line. County surveyor staff told the council that an original subdivision survey recorded in 1987 incorrectly showed the county line and that historic sources — U.S. Geological Survey quad maps and lieutenant governor/state surveyor records — place the boundary on the ridgeline.
The mislocation was not a problem until property owners began building; county staff said one Morgan‑county side house application revealed a parcel split by the county line, because the subdivision parcels were recorded in Summit County even where the historic county line runs. Staff proposed moving the boundary to follow the westerly subdivision boundary (the ridgeline) through Plat E and part of Plat G and tying the adjusted line to an earlier reestablishment near Plat A.
Planning and survey staff said the change would affect 22 properties in the two plats. Two Morgan County parcels (including the Pine Meadow Ranch Water Company) would be affected; staff said the water company would lose about a half‑acre under the corrected boundary and that the other two Morgan parcels would actually gain some area. County staff said the change does not reduce Summit County tax revenue because the parcels were already recorded in Summit County and that the tax commission typically does not adjudicate such boundary disputes unless sales‑tax questions arise.
Staff reported prior coordination with the state surveyor’s office and said they plan to meet with Morgan County in a work session and proceed to public hearings required in each county. County staff asked for council support to pursue cooperative action with Morgan County; council members expressed support and asked staff to continue coordination and return with hearings and any legal descriptions necessary to record corrected parcel descriptions.
What happens next: County survey staff said they will meet Morgan County next week and schedule the required public hearings in both counties; staff will prepare legal descriptions and a local entity plat for recording if both counties agree to the adjustment.
