Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Pue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs changes to subdivision utility‑easements, sends proposal to town council
Summary
The Genola Planning Commission voted to recommend amendments to subdivision rules that would allow new and the removal of existing public utility easements (PUEs) where they are not needed, and to add a drawing and clarifying language; the proposal moves next to the town council for legal cleanup and final action.
The Genola Planning Commission voted Feb. 5 to recommend changes to the town's subdivision code that would change how public utility easements (PUEs) are shown for new subdivisions and create a process for removing existing, unused PUEs from plats. Committee member Norm, who presented the proposal, said the change is intended to free landowners from easement encumbrances that are never used.
Why it matters: The amendment would let the town adopt a standard drawing for PUEs and allow plat amendments to remove PUEs where utilities are not required, potentially returning buildable land to property owners. Commissioners discussed technical details — including front and side PUEs set at a 10‑foot width and limiting side easements to the setback depth — and asked staff to insert Norm's drawing into the ordinance text and have the town attorney finalize wording before council review.
Norm described the local example he used to illustrate the change: “I live in a subdivision that's 18 years old and there's a quarter of an acre of my property that are all taken up by PUEs that are never gonna be used,” he said, arguing the proposed wording would correct similar encumbrances on other lots.
Commissioners clarified scope: public utility easements intended for utilities governed by the Public Utility Commission (fiber, gas, electric) would remain distinct from private irrigation or high‑line easements. The commission agreed the ordinance should show buildable area and explicitly state that rear private irrigation easements are not public utility easements under state law.
Motion and next steps: Norm moved to recommend the amended section J language (including the drawing update) to the town council, with the town attorney to clean up phrasing for consistency; Brent seconded. The commission approved the motion by voice vote. The measure now goes to the town council for review and final action.
The commission also raised related editorial clarifications the attorney should confirm, including consistent use of “proposed roads” versus “planned roads” and labeling the PUE drawing with width and setback distances. The commission did not adopt technical numeric setbacks in the meeting; those specifics will be finalized in the ordinance draft sent to council.
The commission moved on after the vote; no public comment was recorded during the hearing on this item.
