Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula County approves vacation of 20-foot utility easement across Meadowlands Lot 5A
Summary
Missoula County Commissioners approved a petition to vacate a 20-foot utility easement that crosses Lot 5A of the Meadowlands subdivision after county staff and the petitioner said the easement contains a retired gas line and no active utilities.
Missoula County Commissioners voted to approve a petition to vacate a 20-foot utility easement crossing Lot 5A of Meadowlands Lot 5 during a county meeting. The petition was submitted to the Recorder’s Office and noticed to affected landowners before the hearing.
County staff and the petitioner told commissioners that the easement once contained a Northwest Energy gas line that has been retired and that utility locators and the utility’s real estate representative confirmed there are no active facilities within the easement. “There’s nothing in here but this dead gas line,” Ron Ewart of PCI said, summarizing the sampling and locator work on the parcel. County staff said adjacent property owners were notified; two owners consented and one (TA Operating LLC) did not provide consent but staff described the easement as serving no current utility function.
Petitioner and county staff explained the county followed a modified petition process for this type of easement vacation rather than the full road-viewing process used for typical road vacations. After public comment closed, a commissioner moved to approve the petition; another commissioner seconded the motion, and the board approved it by voice vote. The meeting record shows the motion carried with the board answering “Aye.”
The county recorded that abandoning the easement would remove a constraint that, petitioners said, reduces the development versatility and value of the parcel. The county noted that any portion of the original Meadowlands easement extending beyond Lot 5A (for example through Lot 6) would require a separate petition filed by the other property owner if that portion is to be vacated.
No additional conditions or amendments to the petition were recorded in the minutes; county staff noted standard notice efforts and confirmed publication and property-owner notifications prior to the hearing.
