Planning commission recommends vacating utility and drainage easements at Arc Ridge subdivision

Aug. 21 — The Reno County Planning Commission recommended vacating a 20‑foot private utility easement and a drainage easement that covers much of Lot 1 and part of Lot 3 in the Arc Ridge Subdivision to clear the way for a proposed building at 3610 East 50 Sixth Avenue.

The recommendation came after the property owners, Jerry and Gayland Boone, told the commission the easements lie entirely on land they own and that the easements were created for an originally planned 27‑lot subdivision that was never fully developed. "These are all on our property ... we fully back staff recommendation to approve the request to vacate these easements, as written," Jerry Boone said in presenting the request.

County planner Mark Vonachin told commissioners the Boones received Board of Zoning Appeals approval earlier for a 50‑by‑150‑foot building but that parts of the proposed building sit within existing platted drainage and utility easements. Vonachin said the survey and a letter from an engineer provided with the application concluded the drainage easement "is not really serving a purpose right now," and that notices to utility providers produced no claims of buried facilities in the private utility easements. He said IdeaTek raised a concern about the adjacent road right of way but staff is not vacating any road right of way in this case.

Vonachin summarized the historical background: the subdivision was planned in the 1990s for 27 lots but only four lots were ever platted and recorded, leaving a large platted drainage easement intended to serve a much larger development. He said staff had the Boones engage an engineer to confirm the easement’s current utility and that records of the original subdivision drainage design are held by the City of Hutchinson and its joint subdivision committee.

Commissioners asked procedural and factual questions, including whether the northwest corner of Lot 2 (owned by another party) would be affected and whether the easements were known during the earlier zoning appeal. Vonachin said the portion on Lot 2 is not part of the proposed vacation because the Boones do not own that parcel. He also said the Boones had considered acquiring additional lots to seek a broader vacation but had not completed those acquisitions.

The motion to recommend vacating the described drainage and utility easements (case no. 2025‑07) was moved and seconded. Staff called the roll; the minutes record the recorded votes as: Tran — yes; Schaefer — yes; Seltzer — yes; Matlin — yes; Martin — yes; Gertz — yes. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Reno County Commission; Vonachin said if a recommendation is made tonight the case may be presented to the county commissioners at the next opportunity.

No members of the public spoke during the hearing, and staff reported no written public comments had been submitted for the record.