Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and planner clash over vacating 66-foot public access easement; commission motion fails
Summary
Residents and property owners in Piedmont Meadows sought to vacate a 66-foot public access easement; developers and town residents said the easement is unused and reduces traffic, while city and planning advocates warned it reserves needed secondary access for future growth. A motion to vacate failed on a 2–2 vote after lengthy public testimony.
The commission heard a packed public hearing July 23 on a petition to vacate a 66-foot public access easement across property owned by Mel and Brenda Flottmeyer in the Piedmont Meadows area.
Tanya Vigg, Meade County Planning Director, opened the hearing by confirming the petition and submitted documents were in order and that the easement was shown on a 50‑year-old plat. Developer Shannon Boston (Baseline Surveying) said the petition had strong support within Piedmont Meadows and described a proposed subdivision on adjacent land that would require secondary access; she said the petitioners sought to resolve how the reserved easement would interact with that proposed development while preserving options for the developer.
Proponents including Donnie Johnson and property owner Brenda Flottmeyer told the commission the easement had never been used, that 46 homeowners in Piedmont Meadows asked for vacatur to prevent through traffic and ATV intrusion, and that the easement would split and devalue their property if a public road were built. "We have a ‘no outlet’ sign at the end of our road," said Donnie Johnson, describing neighbors’ concerns about looky‑loos and recreational traffic.
Opponents included Piedmont’s city attorney (speaking as a private citizen) who urged caution and pointed to county ordinances that typically do not allow new plats served by only one access point. He and other planning voices said the reserved easement preserves flexibility to add secondary access as development pressures increase. Commissioners also raised jurisdictional issues: vacation of the existing easement falls under the county commission’s statutory authority, while any new easement or platting for the developer would be under Piedmont’s platting jurisdiction.
Commissioners questioned whether an alternate access had been formally proposed to Piedmont and whether the petitioners could condition vacatur on creation of a replacement access. Shannon Boston said the developer had proposed a private driveway to serve a 10‑acre lot but that the full plat configuration had not been formally accepted by Piedmont Trustees.
After roughly 30 minutes of proponent testimony and a similar span for opponents, Commissioner from District 4 moved to vacate the easement and another commissioner seconded. The motion failed in a recorded voice vote, 2–2, after the board took a break. Commissioners noted they were balancing the will of local homeowners against planning standards and the county’s long‑term road‑access policies.
The record shows no final plat or approved public replacement access at the time of the hearing; commissioners and staff recommended further coordination between the petitioners, Piedmont Trustees and the developer to resolve access and platting before bringing a new petition forward.
The action ended without vacatur; the commission recessed for a break following the vote.
