Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners tentatively back variance to vacate western easement for Desert View Estates shop; staff recommended denial, board tables for findings
Summary
Ada County commissioners agreed in principle to a request by Todd and Kimberly Woods to vacate a western utility/drainage/irrigation easement and to grant a variance enabling two outbuildings to encroach a 10‑foot setback on a rural‑residence lot, and tabled the matter to March 25 for revised findings.
Todd and Kimberly Woods asked Ada County to vacate a portion of a 10‑foot utility/drainage/irrigation easement along their western property line and to grant a variance allowing two outbuildings (one existing, one under construction) to encroach the 10‑foot setback on a 1.03‑acre rural‑residence lot in Desert View Estates Subdivision No. 3.
Staff recommendation and agency responses Associate planner Michaela Owens told commissioners staff recommends denial because the vacation would grant a special privilege not otherwise afforded to other rural residences in the subdivision. Owens said the site constraints (the septic drain field’s location, irrigation controls and existing structures and easements) were cited by the applicant as reasons for relief; utilities and agencies contacted for the easement relinquishment sent letters of relinquishment (Lumen/CenturyLink/Quest, Intermountain Gas, Marathon Pipeline, Veolia and Western Water Company); Idaho Power had not yet responded.
Applicant testimony and neighborhood context Todd Woods explained the timeline: an older shop was begun in the 1990s and finished roughly 2007–08; a new shop under construction was set back after excavation revealed proximity to the septic drain field. Woods said he had negotiated a neighboring property agreement for drainage and a gutter to avoid runoff onto the neighbor’s land and believed the project could proceed with the requested vacation. Two neighbors submitted letters of support, and staff reported no agency objections from utilities that returned relinquishment letters.
Commission discussion and board action Commissioners discussed the legal standard for variances — whether granting relief would create a special privilege and whether an undue hardship exists. Although staff recommended denial, commissioners indicated they were inclined to grant the relief given the site constraints and the lack of agency opposition. The board voted to approve the variance in principle but tabled the item to the March 25 business meeting for staff to prepare revised findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the commission’s direction.
