Resident alleges county sided with neighbor in long-running property dispute

At a pre-meeting public comment session, Chester Cullen told county hearing staff that a decades-old dispute over access and fill on his property has left him financially harmed and without recourse. Cullen said an appellate court ruling and a county resolution from 2010 resulted in a 50-foot strip of land being treated as tax-forfeited and a 16.5-foot private easement granted to neighbors Brian and Tracy Hutchinson. "They then approved a 16 and a half foot private easement to Brian and Tracy Hutchinson across the property," Cullen said. "The passing and approving of the resolution is the 18 minute video. I've been asking y'all to what. That's a fraud. A county attorney cannot overturn a judge's decision, and that's what happened right there on that video." The matter was raised during the session the board holds for items that are not on the formal agenda; no board action or vote occurred during the hearing. Meeting staff extended Cullen's three-minute public-comment window so he could present documents and quotes that, he said, came from an appellate-court ruling. Cullen told officials he would return to provide more details at future meetings and said the dispute has cost him more than $100,000. Why it matters: Cullen's comments raise questions about earlier county decisions involving property access, tax-forfeited land and private easements, and allege a conflict between judicial rulings and later administrative actions. Those issues, if accurate, affect property rights for people who own or border rural roads such as North Triplett Road and could have legal and financial implications for affected landowners. Cullen described parts of the factual background as he asserted it. He said the Hutchinsons petitioned the county in July 2010 to establish a cartway over land he identified as the Kochie/Collins property and that the Hutchinsons later built a home in February 2009 after being told by the county their access "could be achieved over North Triplett Road." "A public road. No. It never was ever," Cullen said, disputing the county's characterization of the route as a public road. Cullen said he previously tried to retain the law firms "Andreessen and Buttersworth" but could not because, he said, "They only work with the county." He left copies of an appellate-court excerpt and other documents with meeting staff. Discussion vs. decision: The session was a public-comment period; no formal motions, votes or staff directions were recorded in the meeting transcript. Meeting staff asked attendees to remain nearby for the formal session and did not respond substantively to Cullen's allegations during the comment period. Context and next steps: Cullen said he will return to future meetings to continue presenting his account. Meeting staff did not announce any follow-up assignment or staff investigation on the record during the session.