The Ravalli County Board of Commissioners on June 26 approved an appeal of a denied Ravalli County Road and Bridge access permit for a driveway on Ricketts Road, authorizing a limited shared approach to serve two single‑family residential lots (Lots B and C) after Road & Bridge described sight‑distance and topographic constraints at the existing location.

John, Road & Bridge, testified that the existing approach had been in place for years but did not meet the current minimum sight‑distance standard of 305 feet; his field observations estimated sight distance in the 200–250‑foot range because of a knoll and grade. "The minimum required sight distance is 305 feet. And I was coming up 200 to 250 feet range," John said. He recommended engineering alternatives but said typical county shop resources could not complete the design work.

Chip (the applicant) and Road & Bridge staff discussed possible remedies: cutting back the bank, pruning or removing brush that limits visibility, regrading the approach to create a 20‑by‑20 landing pad with an adequate back‑radius, and possibly rebarreling or extending a 46‑foot culvert to improve drainage and create a perpendicular approach. Chip’s representative said the proposal would improve the existing approach and that they planned to clear shrubbery that restricts sight lines.

Commissioners reviewed the legal and plat history: a court‑ordered split and a Certificate of Survey (COS 2933) identify an existing shared driveway location. Commissioners noted the subdivision/exemption history can create access complications and said the county’s access policy requires address of safety and sight‑distance issues before increased use is authorized.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the appeal to allow a shared single‑family residential approach limited to Lots B and C, with conditions that: the applicants work with Road & Bridge on design and construction of the improved approach to county standards as far as practicable; vegetation that impedes sight distance be cleared; and the permit be explicitly limited to the two single‑family residences (not expanded to serve additional parcels). The motion was moved and seconded, the chair called the question and recorded aye votes; the motion carried.

The commissioners noted that alternatives such as relocating the approach or constructing new access farther away from the knoll would require engineering/survey work and easements; the board encouraged the applicant to explore those options but limited the approved use to the two identified lots and required coordination with Road & Bridge for final design and construction permits.

The board directed staff to issue an approach permit tied to the described findings of fact and to make clear on permit documents that the approval is for Lots B and C (single‑family residential) only.