Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council leans toward easement and limited relocation to resolve out-of-compliance Anderson building
Summary
Council reviewed legal options for a privately owned building that encroaches on town property and violates a previously granted variance. Counsel offered selling, licensing/easement, or requiring relocation; council favored an easement/license while requiring the north end to be moved about 15 feet and asked legal counsel to draft an agreement.
The Fielding Town Council reviewed options for addressing a private building that does not comply with an earlier variance and encroaches on town right-of-way. Staff relayed three options from legal counsel: sell a narrow strip of town property, grant a license or easement that preserves town ownership, or require the owner to move the structure.
Staff summarized counsel’s recommendations, saying, “These are 3 options that the that Fred suggested,” and explained conditions the town would likely require, including updated surveys and the owner shouldering survey and legal costs. The staff member emphasized the variance violation on the north side is mandatory to correct — that portion must meet the variance.
Council discussion and reasoning: Several council members said the easement or licensing approach preserves town ownership while generating compensation and place legally binding conditions (e.g., maintenance, drainage, and a recorded document). Some members argued moving the building’s north end 15 feet would address the variance requirement and reduce a sight-line safety concern at a nearby stop sign; others noted the cost burden on the owner and engineering complications (truss orientation) that could make a full rebuild expensive.
Outcome and next steps: Council members indicated a preference for a license/easement option with conditions: the owner pays for surveys, legal descriptions and fees; the town retains rights over utilities, drainage and future public needs; and the owner brings the north end into compliance (approximately 15 feet). No formal, final vote was recorded in the transcript; the council requested that legal counsel draft the agreement and return the item for formal action at a future meeting.
Context: Staff said the building slipped through approval and inspection processes when it was reclassified as an agricultural building (which drew no county inspections), and the town did not perform inspections or require a survey before approval. Council members noted the need to tighten plan-review procedures and require surveys before approval going forward.
