Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meade County declines to reopen vote to vacate Bloxburg section line after lengthy public hearing
Summary
After a multi-hour public hearing with testimony from developers, landowners and the planning board, the Meade County Commission voted against reconsidering its May decision to vacate a section line near Bloxburg, with commissioners citing planning-board opposition and concerns about precedent and long-term county access.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Meade County Commission on July 9 declined a motion to reconsider an earlier decision vacating a section line near Bloxburg, after a lengthy public hearing that included both proponents and opponents.
Proponents, including surveyor Shannon Boston and landowner Ross Lamp, said relocating the section line made building the new road (Ralph’s Way) feasible and that the relocation provided a safer, second access for residents. "By simply moving or relocating that section line a quarter mile to the north, it made the road feasible, much less costly and tied into existing roadways," Ross Lamp said.
Opponents cited the planning commission’s prior 5–1 vote to deny the petition and warned that vacating section lines for convenience would set a precedent countywide. Mike Charnholm, a member of the planning board, said the board denied the vacation because it "does not serve any viable or hardship" and may create future maintenance burdens for the county.
Commissioners debated developer responsibilities, public safety benefits of the new road, and long-term access planning. One commissioner said he believed he had voted without full information at a prior meeting and moved to reconsider; the motion to reconsider failed on a roll-call vote (Commissioner Lysoric voted against; Commissioner Seaman yes; Commissioner Leggett opposed; Commissioner Creed yes; chair voted no), so the original vacating action stands.
The hearing underscored competing priorities in land-use decisions: immediate safety and access improvements funded and constructed by developers versus preserving section-line rights to avoid future requests to vacate rights-of-way.

