Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Vacation Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables easement vacation and variance for West View Drive shed to June 24 pending utility relinquishments
Summary
The commissioners tabled application 20250616 (vacation of a 10-foot utility/irrigation easement and a variance for an existing shed) to June 24, 2025, and instructed applicants to secure relinquishment letters from easement holders before final approval.
The Ada County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday tabled action on application 20250616-VAC-V, which seeks vacation of a 10-foot utility/irrigation drainage easement and a variance to allow an unpermitted accessory structure to remain within a 25-foot interior side-yard setback at 6029 West View Drive.
Planner Brett Danielson reported that the roughly 5-by-40-foot accessory structure (staff cited a roughly 540-square-foot accessory structure built in 2017) encroaches about 3.5 feet into a recorded 10-foot easement and that the building was constructed without a building permit. Danielson said staff transmitted the application to affected agencies; irrigation and several agencies reported no facilities impacted at that specific location, but staff found the variance did not meet county code and recommended denial.
Danielson explained the easement-vacation process requires two steps: board approval plus relinquishment letters from easement holders (utility companies, irrigation district, other easement stakeholders). Commissioners discussed that lack of relinquishment letters could render an approval ineffective and noted the board cannot force another party to sign away easement rights. Recorder Brent (staff) and others advised that certified mail to known utilities is an accepted approach when some utilities do not reply.
Applicants Jessica and Jeremy Butterfield said the shed was built in February 2017 on what had been an alfalfa field and that they had assumed an old fence marked the property line; they said the next-door house and fence established the current boundary only after the neighboring lot was developed. The Butterfields said moving the shed would require removing concrete slab and planted trees and would likely damage the structure; they also said similar variances have been granted in the area in the past.
Given the circumstances and applicant testimony, a commissioner moved to table to the June 24 open business meeting so staff could prepare revised findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting approval contingent on receiving the required easement relinquishments. The board voted to table the matter to June 24 with that condition.
