Committee approves two driveway access appeals on County Highways T and B

The Dodge County highway committee on Tuesday approved two driveway access appeals — one for County Highway T near State Highway 89 and Dahlman Road and another for County Highway B — after staff described precise spacing and sight‑distance shortfalls and applicants described local circumstances.

Staff member (county highway staff) told the committee the Highway T proposal had been denied by their supervisor because it failed three standards: required driveway spacing, required sight distance and the prescribed separation from neighboring driveways. "Those need to be 250 feet," the staff member said, describing measurements of about 220 feet to the driveway north and roughly 200 feet to the driveway south. On sight distance, staff said the policy calls for 610 feet in both directions and that this site measured about 515 feet to the north, creating a "vision gap" in that direction.

The applicants said the proposed access would serve farm equipment and would be infrequently used; the staff member noted that an "egg" (farm) driveway has lower expected frequency of use than a residential driveway. After discussion a committee member said the proposal was "very minimally short on spacing" and moved to approve; the motion carried and staff said the supervisor would follow up to finalize the permit.

At the County Highway B appeal, property owner Sue Braunschweig and neighbor Liz Coral Beach described family land divisions, a potential sale and floodplain constraints that shaped a preferred driveway location. Staff explained a residential driveway requires 500 feet of separation and that the proposed location measured roughly 240 feet to one nearby driveway and 220 feet to another — roughly half the required distance — but that sight distance at the site was acceptable. The committee discussed shared‑driveway easements, floodplain concerns and how a driveway sited slightly farther south would avoid some flood risks. One committee member who reviewed the site recommended approval given the circumstances and local topography; the committee voted to approve the residential access and instructed staff on next steps.

Both approvals were explicit votes of the committee; staff said they would reach out to the applicants to complete permit finalization. The committee did not adopt any change to county spacing or sight‑distance rules during the meeting.

The committee moved on to the next agenda item after the permits were approved.