The Douglas County Planning Commission on the appeal of condition B1A for tentative parcel map DP21‑0141 found that the county’s original requirement for a 10‑foot right‑of‑way dedication along the full frontage could not be sustained as written, but the commission modified the condition to require a 10‑foot dedication limited to the 25‑foot private access/public‑utility easement serving the new 2.5‑acre parcel.

The appeal, filed by property manager Bob Coker of Frank Settlemyer Properties LLC and argued by attorney Jim Cavilla, challenged a staff condition requiring a 10‑foot strip of public right‑of‑way along Genoa Lane (State Route 206) as part of parcel map DP21‑0141. The subject map would create a 2.5‑acre heritage parcel and a roughly 249‑acre remainder. After extensive staff presentations, public comment, and legal argument, the commission voted 4–2 to grant the appeal in part and adopt the narrower 10‑foot dedication across the new parcel’s driveway access rather than along the parcel’s entire frontage.

Staff, represented by Lucille Rayo of Community Development and county engineer Jeremy Hutchings, told commissioners the Transportation Plan designates Genoa Lane as a rural collector with an 80‑foot right‑of‑way standard and that dedication is normally required with tentative parcel maps. "Dedication of right of way is required with tentative parcel map," Lucille Rayo said during the staff presentation. Jeremy Hutchings added that the county seeks additional right‑of‑way to comply with long‑term standards: "It's really nothing to do with what we're planning today, but what we may need for the future and to comply with that master transportation plan."

The appellant argued the requested exaction was not proportional to the impact of creating a single 2.5‑acre parcel. Attorney Jim Cavilla told the commission that "the exaction is not related in any way in this case to the impact of this development," and urged the commission to treat the heritage‑parcel split differently than larger multi‑lot divisions previously used to justify dedications along Genoa Lane.

Deputy District Attorney Sam Taylor briefed commissioners on the legal standard. He cited U.S. Supreme Court guidance that there is no bright‑line mathematical test for proportionality and said the review is case‑by‑case: "There is no mathematical formula; it's just sort of a case by case basis." County staff argued that the correct proportionality comparison is to the entire division (the two lots created), not only the smaller 2.5‑acre lot, and pointed to past dedications along Genoa Lane as precedent.

Commission discussion focused heavily on proportionality, precedent, and long‑range planning. Several commissioners expressed concern that allowing a blanket denial of the county’s condition could prevent the county from ever obtaining needed right‑of‑way if successive small parcel splits were made over time; others said carving out limited heritage parcels should not routinely trigger full frontage dedications.

Public comment included statements both supporting and objecting to the staff position. Longtime local landowners and a retired public works engineer emphasized the county’s right‑of‑way standards and the practical difficulty of future acquisitions by eminent domain, while others argued the 10‑foot demand represented an excessive take from a single small parcel.

Procedural votes related to the appeal included a unanimous finding that the appellant had standing, recorded as 6–0. A first motion to deny the appeal (which would have upheld the broader dedication) failed. A subsequent motion to grant the appeal passed after modification; the approved wording confines the required 10‑foot public right‑of‑way dedication to the 25‑foot private access/public‑utility easement that serves the 2.5‑acre parcel, rather than along the parcel’s entire frontage on Genoa Lane. The modified motion was adopted by a 4–2 roll call (Aye: Christie Kendall, Bryce [surname on file], Mark [surname on file], Brian [surname on file]; Nay: Commissioner Nick Meyer, Chairman Walder).

The commission’s action means DP21‑0141 can proceed without the county obtaining the 10‑foot strip along the parcel’s entire frontage; however, the applicant must dedicate the narrower 10‑foot strip where the parcel’s 25‑foot access meets Genoa Lane. Any future division of the remainder parcel would be reviewed under the county’s subdivision and transportation standards, and staff noted the county could seek additional right‑of‑way with future applications or use eminent domain if the county later deemed it necessary.

The Planning Commission’s decision reflects a compromise between long‑range transportation planning goals and the appellant’s proportionality argument for heritage parcels.