Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterline Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deer Crossing homeowners urge SUA to delay Sanger waterline easement, citing property impacts
Summary
Deer Crossing residents told the Stillwater Utilities Authority they received notice of a permanent and temporary utility easement for a proposed Sanger Street waterline and asked trustees to pause the project until property-level engineering and alignment alternatives are provided.
Jennifer Castleberry, a Deer Crossing resident at 3606 West Deer Crossing, told the Stillwater Utilities Authority she and her husband received a certified letter in July notifying them of the city’s intent to acquire permanent and temporary utility easements for a proposed waterline on the west side of Sanger Street. "The current proposed line is 56% smaller than what is in use right now," Castleberry said, and she questioned how the city could claim the change would "increase capacity" while specifying a much smaller pipe.
Castleberry said she and other homeowners were not consulted about underground infrastructure on their properties and that the project alignment would cut across the Deer Crossing entrance, affecting the homeowners association and every resident in the neighborhood. She asked what alternative alignments were considered, why the west side of Sanger was chosen, and why fair-market-value calculations were made when, she said, the city had not conducted property-level inspections.
Mel Castleberry also spoke in support of those concerns. Resident Roger Goss, who said he had been asked to review the packet for the neighborhood, told trustees the plan in the meeting materials mislocates a homeowner’s sewer lateral field and shows inconsistent fence and tree treatments across plan versions. He said the drafting of the permanent-easement area (described in materials as roughly 15 by 20 or 15 by 40 feet) appears to be an oddly shaped notch into the front yard and that trees shielding the property’s entrance were slated for removal.
Trustees did not vote on a specific easement at the meeting. The chair encouraged the Castleberrys to continue discussions with staff and said staff would work with stakeholders to provide additional information. Staff clarified the consent-docket item up for approval that evening was limited to authorizing project expenditures to continue right-of-way acquisitions and not approval of any individual easement or parcel negotiation.
The Castleberrys requested the authority table the easement until further due diligence and engineering studies are completed; trustees directed staff to continue discussions with the homeowners. The meeting moved on to the consent docket after the exchange.
