Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Utility Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates allowing accessory buildings in public‑utility easements; directs attorney to revise language
Summary
Commissioners debated a proposed change that would allow accessory structures in public utility easements (PUEs) under criteria or via amended plats. Concerns focused on property rights, liability, and whether recorded PUEs without existing utilities should be opened to development. The commission directed the town attorney to revise the draft and return it for further review.
The Genola Planning Commission spent significant time on Sept. 4 debating proposed zoning amendments that would allow accessory buildings to be located within public‑utility easements (PUEs) under specified conditions or, alternatively, permit property owners to remove a PUE through an amended plat.
One commissioner cited court precedent and state code indicating that when a landowner builds in an easement they generally “bear the risk” of later utility work, and that municipal permitting does not expand property rights for those owners. That legal framing — including reference to a Ninth Circuit decision — informed a proposal that would let accessory structures be built inside PUEs provided existing utility facilities are not impeded, the structure does not block access for maintenance, and the owner acknowledges that they assume risk (Unidentified Speaker S2 and others, SEG 1412–1562).
Other commissioners argued for a pathway to remove unused PUEs through an amended plat where feasible, while recognizing plat amendments can be costly. The body discussed allowing two options: either meet clear criteria that mitigate risk (recorded acknowledgement, setbacks, access) or prepare a plat amendment to remove the PUE entirely. Commissioners also voiced concerns about the town’s litigation risk, insurance coverage and whether insurance would cover takings claims or punitive damages.
After debate, the commission moved to table the item and directed the town attorney to revise the language so both options are explicit (meeting minutes show a motion to table and direct legal revisions). The commission also agreed to consult the town council and return the item with refined language.
Next steps: Town attorney will prepare revised ordinance language adding the amended‑plat alternative and clarifying criteria and liability implications; staff will coordinate review with the town council before the commission takes further action.
