Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement And Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court enforces prior easement and orders back parcel eligible for building permit despite county regulations
Summary
In a civil docket hearing the judge found that a previously entered easement will permit a fourth, back parcel to obtain a building permit notwithstanding Dixon County subdivision rules; the county attorney warned that such access usually triggers HOA or road-standard requirements.
The court on the civil docket upheld a previously entered easement and ordered that a back parcel be entitled to a building permit despite Dixon County planning and zoning regulations requiring either a homeowners association or road improvements when a permanent easement serves multiple lots. The judge said the earlier court order granting the easement must be enforced and that the parcel should be allowed a permit to fulfill the easement’s purpose.
The ruling came after the court called on Dixon County’s attorney, Andrew Mills, to explain the county’s position on permanent easements and building permits. "Any lot, in Dixon County, in order to obtain a building permit, that's the purview we're looking at here," Mills told the court, summarizing subdivision regulation 1-1-112.109 and the county’s practice that a permanent easement serving more than one lot typically must be 50 feet in width and the access brought up to county road standards or be accompanied by the formation of an HOA to maintain the access.
Mills told the judge the county often reviews CC&Rs and HOA documents and will expect some organizational responsibility for ongoing maintenance when more than one lot relies on a private access, and that without a court order the county’s application of the subdivision rules could block issuance of a building permit. The judge noted, however, that if the court finds good cause to order access, the county will follow that order: "This court orders that that parcel should be entitled to a building permit in order to accomplish the purposes of the easement order," the judge said, directing that the order include the parcel number to make the county’s action clear.
The judge explained he had previously signed an order granting the easement and that the current hearing was to provide instructions on implementation. Counsel said the parties intended a single residence to be built on the back parcel and that the agreed order had described a 50-foot easement but had not expressly addressed building permits. Mills acknowledged the agreed order’s lack of explicit permit language and described the county’s baseline requirements for multiple-lot access and road maintenance.
The court directed that an order be prepared specifying the parcel number for planning and zoning staff and said the county would follow the court’s direction. The court gave the parties, and the clerk’s office, instruction to include the necessary parcel identifiers in the written order.
What happens next: the judge directed counsel to submit a written order that identifies the parcel number so the planning and zoning office can process the building-permit entitlement, and the county attorney said the county will comply with the court’s order. The matter will proceed to entry of that written order and subsequent permitting actions by the county.
