Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant’s rural land-use request near Shellsburg tabled after board seeks site visit
Summary
Cameron Ericson asked to build a single-family home on a portion of a high-quality farmland parcel; neighbors expressed concern that approval would set a precedent and disrupt farm operations. The board voted to table the request for one week to allow supervisors to view the site.
Benton County supervisors on Tuesday tabled a land-use request from applicant Cameron Ericson after concerns from neighbors and questions about impacts to high-quality farmland.
County staff presented the proposal: the applicant requested a change of use to allow a single-family dwelling and outbuildings on roughly 3.85 acres of a larger parcel west of Shellsburg. Staff noted the parcel has a weighted CSR in the mid-80s and estimated the proposal would remove about 2.2 acres from row-crop production while converting roughly 1.9 acres into grass — a swap the applicant described as an attempt to keep tillable acreage roughly balanced. Staff advised the request may be inconsistent with Benton County land-preservation policy and that adjacent landowners had been notified.
Applicant Cameron Ericson told supervisors he is closing on the purchase, plans to provide driveway access, install a septic system and well, and that he would fence or mark corners if necessary. Ericson said he does not intend to farm the parcel and would either rent or sell remaining acreage; he argued the change would improve farm access and not disrupt operations.
Neighbors and staff raised objections: the record included comments from nearby farmers and landowners (including written comments received by the land-use office) who said approval could set a precedent for taking high-quality farm ground out of production and could complicate row-crop operations. Supervisors asked for more information on the site, including an on-site view, and discussed subdivision and road-surface rules that could require a hard-surface road or a variance; board members cited estimated paving costs in the tens of thousands of dollars for road improvements.
One supervisor moved to table the application for one week to allow board members to visit and view the property. The motion was seconded and passed. The board set a follow-up hearing for the next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. to continue consideration.
Why it matters: The case highlights the tension between rural residential development and preservation of high-quality agricultural land. Supervisors paused action to see the site and better weigh farming impacts, road and subdivision requirements, and neighbor concerns.
