Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outline two easement requests across tax‑forfeited lands; commissioners to place items on consent agenda
Summary
Land Services presented two distinct easement requests: an after‑the‑fact driveway easement requested by Kurt Chenier and a reciprocal easement proposal from Kurt Johnson that would grant the county access to additional tracts; commissioners discussed liability and precedent and agreed to place the requests on the consent agenda.
Land Services staff told the Crow Wing County Board that two easement requests had been reviewed under the county's land asset management plan and forest resources plan and brought forward for consideration.
The first request, from Kurt and Samantha Chenier, involves a driveway constructed on county‑administered land adjacent to the Cheniers' parcel. Staff reported the driveway exists, the Chenier parcel faces a large wetland that blocks reasonable alternative access, and staff believes granting an easement would not cause significant environmental impacts. The owner, Kurt Chenier, addressed the board and said he purchased the raw land in November and attempted to obtain permits from the township but had not completed a boundary survey before clearing a path.
One commissioner voiced concern that allowing after‑the‑fact easements might create a precedent of "asking forgiveness rather than permission." Staff said the county typically requires survey work and that fees for easements are set based on acreage through the county assessor; the board retains final authority over whether to grant and at what price.
The second request, from Kurt Johnson, would create a county easement across Johnson's property in exchange for a county easement allowing Johnson permanent access to his cabin parcel. Land Services said Johnson would pay survey costs and that the reciprocal arrangement could provide the county with permanent access to roughly 208–280 acres of county land that otherwise require difficult wetland crossings.
After discussion about liability, maintenance and logger responsibilities, commissioners indicated they would place the easement items on the consent agenda; no formal roll‑call vote is recorded in the transcript.
"The easement would be to the property," a Land Services representative said in response to a question about liability, adding the county attorney would provide a legal opinion where needed. A commissioner who opposed a pattern of many easements said he would nevertheless support the item given the site's limited alternatives.
