Highway 13 right‑of‑way timber dispute tabled after landowner complaint; committee offers alternative wood allocation

The Ashland County Highway Committee tabled further action on a complaint from an adjoining landowner who said county crew actions resulted in the loss of timber from the State Highway 13 right‑of‑way. The committee directed staff to gather more information and consider a limited accommodation — offering the landowner access to other trees in the right‑of‑way under a work‑on‑right‑of‑way permit — and set a follow-up timeline.

Commissioner Matt told the committee the trees were on state right‑of‑way land and that county staff had assisted three individuals in filing DOT right‑of‑way permits; a typo on one permit email caused a delay and the landowner’s permit was not returned, the commissioner said. "He made a mistake on his application when he sent it to the DOT ... the guy didn't get it. The other two individuals removed the wood," Matt said. The landowner (identified in the transcript as Chuck Hirschrider) asserted the wood belonged to him and requested payment of several thousand dollars; county staff said the wood was on state right‑of‑way and not county property.

Committee members discussed state right‑of‑way policy, which provides some preference to adjoining landowners for certain material if the state chooses to offer it, but noted the county lacks authority to change DOT ownership. Matt said county crews would be stricter going forward: the county will not assist with permit submissions to DOT in the same way and will require landowners to work directly with DOT to obtain work‑on‑right‑of‑way permits. As an accommodation, Matt said county staff could schedule additional right‑of‑way brushing in the fall and issue a work‑on‑right‑of‑way permit so the landowner could remove similar trees, but the county would not offer payment for wood already removed.

Committee members asked staff to measure and document the right‑of‑way limits at the site and asked the highway commissioner to follow up with the landowner. A motion to table further action passed on a voice vote; the committee recommended staff return with clear facts, a measured boundary and a deadline for the landowner to accept offered wood if the county proceeds with accommodation. The transcript records no formal demand for payment passing to risk management at the meeting and staff said a formal claim would be subject to risk‑management review.