Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Churchill County approves two‑lot parcel split on Roberson Lane with road‑work conditions
Summary
The Churchill County Board of Commissioners approved a parcel map (PC 25‑7) to split 2376 Roberson Lane (APN 008‑113‑16) into two lots, subject to staff conditions and road‑improvement requirements; the board accepted easements and rejected offers to dedicate land and improvements.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Churchill County Board of Commissioners approved a parcel map application (PC 25‑7) to divide property at 2376 Roberson Lane (Assessor’s Parcel Number 008‑113‑16) into two lots, subject to conditions listed in the staff report and required road improvements.
Dean Patterson, Public Works and Planning, told the commissioners the split was “fairly straightforward” after staff and the applicant resolved utility and road easement issues. Patterson said the subdivision will require upgrading a portion of Roberson Lane and some minor work to an existing private road serving the new parcels, identified in the staff presentation as “Indigo.”
The motions approved by the board accepted the applicant’s offer to grant the easements shown on the submitted maps and rejected offers to dedicate land and improvements. A commissioner moved the motion to approve the parcel map on behalf of the DeDeMasi family irrevocable trust; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. There was no public comment during the item.
The approval is subject to the conditions listed in the staff report; the motion and staff presentation did not specify an exact recording or implementation date. The staff record noted that the applicant is aware of the road‑improvement obligations and is willing to complete them.
Dean Patterson presented the item for planning staff; Pam Moore, from the Clerk/Treasurer’s Office, confirmed the agenda posting at the start of the meeting. The board did not identify additional funding or a county contribution tied to the road improvements during the discussion.

