Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Easement Abandonment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues patent-easement abandonment after residents raise access and emergency concerns

3144871 ยท April 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents opposing an easement abandonment told the board the proposal would block access to wells and emergency escape routes. The Board of Supervisors voted to continue the matter for further review and staff follow-up.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on April 9 continued an item seeking patent-easement abandonment after residents said the change would block private access and eliminate emergency egress routes.

Josh Sanders, Ashley Sanders and Donald R. Pease spoke in opposition to agenda item number 15 during the statutory hearings section, saying the lower-property access and a top emergency access are needed when seasonal washes flood and residents must evacuate. The speakers said a recent road and fence work had already begun on the parcel in question.

Vice Chair Brophy McGee said the concerns raised โ€” including potential blocked access to a well house and a repeated local flooding event requiring the emergency access โ€” merited additional review. Planning staff asked to meet with residents and said they would re-check property easement records and field conditions before the board takes further action.

Vice Chair Brophy McGee moved to continue the item; Supervisor Gallardo seconded. The board agreed to continue the patent-easement abandonment to the May 7 board meeting to allow staff time to meet with residents, review complaints and return with findings. The board also asked staff to investigate construction activity the speakers said was already underway and to determine whether any enforcement or interim protection for neighbors' access was required.

County staff said they had received one formal complaint before the hearing but agreed further follow-up was warranted in light of the public remarks. Staff stated they would collect contact information and coordinate with residents to review the concerns and report back.

No final decision on the easement was made at the April 9 hearing; the item is continued to the May 7 board meeting.