Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Genola planners debate allowing building in public-utility easements when no utilities exist
Summary
Commissioners discussed a possible code change to permit construction inside public utility easements (PUE) where no utilities are present, and considered a case-by-case review process or a short worksheet to document risks.
GENOLA — Genola Planning Commission members discussed whether to permit construction in public-utility easements (PUE) when no utilities occupy those easements and how to manage the associated risks.
The mayor (as relayed by staff) reportedly supports allowing construction into PUEs when utilities are not present; commissioners said the change would require code amendments and careful handling of existing plats. Commissioners proposed allowing building in PUEs only when the easement contains no active utilities, and using either a case-by-case review or a short worksheet documenting utility locations and risks before permitting construction.
Why it matters: PUEs are typically reserved so utilities may be installed, maintained or relocated. Allowing construction in an easement where utilities are absent can give homeowners additional buildable area, but it also creates potential risk if utility providers later need the space.
Discussion highlights
- Commissioners and staff emphasized that if an easement already contains utilities (power, gas, secondary water, etc.) the city should not allow construction that interferes with service.
- Staff noted the county has no authority to remove utility lines; the city and utility owners control on-the-ground changes.
- Proposed procedural options included: a) case-by-case determination when a homeowner seeks to build within a PUE and b) a short worksheet/worksheet checklist for applicants to document existing utility locations and to demonstrate that no utilities occupy the easement.
- Commissioners discussed risks related to older subdivisions where secondary-water lines or other infrastructures may exist but not be obvious on current plats.
Next steps
Commissioners suggested returning the topic for a formal code amendment discussion at a future meeting and asked staff to research how to implement review criteria and any risk-disclosure language; no ordinance change was made at the Aug. 7 meeting.
