Council reviews county subdivision at 3490 Bighorn Ave.; avigation easement required
November 10, 2025 | Sheridan, Sheridan County, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
City Planner Kelly Schroeder briefed the Sheridan City Council on a county subdivision at 3490 Bighorn Avenue—identified in the study session as PL‑25‑29 / Resolution 29‑25 (Casa De La Braunsett)—that would divide 7.26 acres into two lots: a 5.73‑acre northern lot and a 1.53‑acre southern lot containing an existing house.
Schroeder said the property is zoned urban residential in the county, lies inside the city’s one‑mile joint planning area and is adjacent to city limits. She said Lot 1 (the northern parcel) will access Bighorn Avenue pending YDOT approval of an access permit, and Lot 2 uses an existing access on Girls School Road. County staff recommended approval with the condition that an Avigation Easement be executed and recorded prior to or coterminous with final plat signing by the Board of County Commissioners.
Schroeder explained utility options: both lots can be served by SAWS water; Lot 2 currently connects to central sewer, while Lot 1 may use a septic system if future development locates structures more than 400 feet from the nearest sewer line. If the lot is developed closer than 400 feet or is further subdivided, the city would require a sewer main extension and city infrastructure standards would apply if public water and sewer are used.
Councilmember Steve asked why the parcel is not annexed into the city; Schroeder said pre‑annexation agreements would be required if the owners tap the city system and that such agreements run with the land. Schroeder offered to request the county share the draft avigation easement so council can review the specific language next week.
Schroeder told the council staff sent notices to surrounding property owners, published a legal ad and posted a sign; no public comments had been received at the time of the study-session presentation. She said staff’s internal review comments (hydrant locations, utility servicing clarifications and minor plat edits) have been addressed and that staff will recommend approval at the next City Council meeting.
The study session contains no final council vote on the subdivision; the transcript records only review and staff recommendation.
Schroeder said the property is zoned urban residential in the county, lies inside the city’s one‑mile joint planning area and is adjacent to city limits. She said Lot 1 (the northern parcel) will access Bighorn Avenue pending YDOT approval of an access permit, and Lot 2 uses an existing access on Girls School Road. County staff recommended approval with the condition that an Avigation Easement be executed and recorded prior to or coterminous with final plat signing by the Board of County Commissioners.
Schroeder explained utility options: both lots can be served by SAWS water; Lot 2 currently connects to central sewer, while Lot 1 may use a septic system if future development locates structures more than 400 feet from the nearest sewer line. If the lot is developed closer than 400 feet or is further subdivided, the city would require a sewer main extension and city infrastructure standards would apply if public water and sewer are used.
Councilmember Steve asked why the parcel is not annexed into the city; Schroeder said pre‑annexation agreements would be required if the owners tap the city system and that such agreements run with the land. Schroeder offered to request the county share the draft avigation easement so council can review the specific language next week.
Schroeder told the council staff sent notices to surrounding property owners, published a legal ad and posted a sign; no public comments had been received at the time of the study-session presentation. She said staff’s internal review comments (hydrant locations, utility servicing clarifications and minor plat edits) have been addressed and that staff will recommend approval at the next City Council meeting.
The study session contains no final council vote on the subdivision; the transcript records only review and staff recommendation.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting