Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press landowner for dollar figure as coal company easement talks continue
Summary
The board debated a proposed easement and road restoration after mining removed a historic county road. Commissioners said an agreement signed by a prior commission created county responsibility; they asked landowner Casey to provide a compensation figure and scheduled a special meeting to continue negotiations.
Mercer County commissioners spent an extended session discussing a proposed easement and the restoration of a county road on property affected by coal‑mining reclamation work.
The dispute centers on roughly 9.2 acres where a historic county road was removed during mining operations and the coal company now plans to reconstruct the road as part of reclamation. County staff and commissioners said a prior written agreement signed by a previous commission creates a legal obligation that effectively makes the county responsible for securing and compensating for the easement.
Commissioners and the landowner, Casey, discussed legal theories including inverse condemnation and prescriptive easement. Todd, an attorney who participated in the discussion, explained that the county’s past actions — lands taken decades ago without formal easement paperwork — give rise to an inverse‑condemnation claim that alters how compensation and attorneys’ fees might be calculated.
Board members said they want the road returned to usable condition and to avoid further delay that could prevent the coal company from completing reclamation. Commissioners asked Casey for a dollar amount to use in negotiations and discussed options including hiring an appraisal if the parties cannot agree on a fair‑market compensation figure. One commissioner summarized the board’s position as two questions: “Where do you want the road?” and “How much do you want?”
Commissioners emphasized they do not want to set an open precedent that would unduly favor one landowner over others and discussed legal risks — including potential court proceedings — if the parties cannot reach a negotiated settlement. Several commissioners said they had “no appetite” to initiate litigation against a landowner to obtain a prescriptive easement and preferred negotiating a settlement that secures the easement and the road reconstruction.
The board instructed staff to put the item on a special meeting agenda (July 25) or the August 6 meeting and urged Casey to provide a proposed compensation figure before the meeting so the commission could act. No final payment or settlement was approved at this session.
