Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Use Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board declines to vacate 50-foot public-use easement in Davidson area amid legal and planning concerns
Summary
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Board on July 17 denied a petition to vacate a 50-foot public-use easement in the Davidson area, citing the borough’s official streets and highways plan and legal uncertainty about the easement’s validity.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Board on July 17 voted to deny a request to vacate a 50-foot public-use easement along the southern boundary of tax Parcel B3 in the Davidson area. The motion to approve the vacation failed on a roll-call vote of 2 in favor and 5 opposed.
The easement lies south of East Texel Drive, east of North Engstrom Road and north of East Wolf Creek Road; staff said the easement is recorded and the official streets and highways map identifies the corridor as a future east–west connection to Palmer Fishhook Road. Chris Kerlin, planning staff, told the board that 12 petitions were submitted, 10 verified as owners of record, and that one objection had been received after the report was written. Staff provided findings for both approval and denial.
Petitioner representatives said the recorded documents are likely invalid because dedications were made by parties that did not own the subject land at the time of recording. Tim Carmen of Bold Moose Land Surveying and John Davidson (son of the petitioner) said the easement appears to be a relic recorded more than 40 years ago and that the strip of woods in question does not physically connect the road network today. The petitioners asked the board to vacate the borough’s recorded interest so they could replat farm parcels and remove a barn encroachment discovered during a replat effort.
Planning Director Alex Straub and Deputy Borough Attorney John Aschenberg cautioned the board that the planning board is exercising a legislative function in vacation requests and that validity of a recorded easement is not a legal question the board can decide; a court action (quiet-title) would be required to determine validity. Staff and the deputy attorney noted the easement appears on the borough’s officially adopted streets and highways plan and that PD&E had objected if the easement is valid.
Board members split on policy: members voting against the vacation emphasized respecting the officially adopted streets and highways plan and retaining rights that could support future transportation projects. Members supporting vacation underscored the petitioners’ evidence, the number of adjoining owners in favor, and the practical inability to use the easement without additional land acquisition. A motion to approve the vacation, made during the meeting, received two yes votes (Planning members Salmon and Burtz) and five no votes (Chavetta, Leibing, Gilson, Traxler and Krieger); the motion failed.
Legal staff advised that if the borough believes the recorded easement is invalid, the appropriate remedy is for petitioners to pursue a quiet-title action in court; alternatively, the official streets and highways plan could be amended through the statutory process. A suggestion to continue the matter indefinitely was discussed but not seconded; the motion to table failed for lack of a second. The board’s decision will be reflected in the record forwarded to the assembly as required for legislative vacations.
The petitioners said they would consider either pursuing a court action or seeking assembly or staff assistance to amend the official streets and highways plan. The board closed the item and continued through the remainder of the July 17 agenda.
