Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve dead‑end road variance, deny narrow access easement; Saget subdivision preliminary plat tabled
Summary
The board approved a variance allowing a dead‑end road length exceeding the standard but rejected a variance to reduce a 60‑foot public right‑of‑way to a 25‑foot private easement (20‑foot roadway). Neighbors raised drainage, irrigation and privacy concerns; the board tabled the preliminary plat to allow revisions and additional documentation.
The Sheridan County Board of Commissioners heard public comment and voted on variances for PP25003, a preliminary plat proposed to create seven lots (roughly 14.398 acres) with private access (Newell Road). County planner Mark Reed summarized the project constraints (narrow parcel, irrigation ditch, an existing MDU gas easement) and recommended variances to exceed the dead‑end road length and to allow a 25‑foot private access easement with a 20‑foot roadway instead of the standard 60‑foot public right‑of‑way.
Neighbors including Sean Murphy and Lynn Custis opposed the reduced easement and expressed concerns about reduced setbacks, dust, noise, potential trespass and impacts to irrigation pipes and drainage. Mike Rathman and others noted standing water and seasonal pooling on the site and urged relocation of the road away from existing residences.
Developer representative Drew Homewell described project constraints (MDU easement, irrigation ditch, septic restrictions), presented a fire‑safety hammerhead turnaround accepted by the Sheridan Rural Fire Department, and said drainage measures and small detention areas would prevent increased off‑site runoff. Commissioners debated the two variance motions separately. They voted to approve the dead‑end road variance (the board signified 'aye' for approval) but rejected the variance to reduce the public right‑of‑way to 25 feet, citing concerns about lack of room for drainage, snow storage and impacts on neighbors; one commissioner said a 40‑foot easement might be worth considering but could not support the 25‑foot proposal as written.
After those variance votes, a motion to table the preliminary plat until the applicant provides revised road and drainage details and additional information (including utility and ditch company letters) passed. The board will consider the revised materials at a future meeting. The preliminary requested variances were partly approved and partly denied, and the plat remains incomplete pending applicant revision and required letters from utility and ditch authorities.
