Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner urges county to finalize planning‑commission resolution over Fitzpatrick replat easement
Summary
A property owner told the county commission that a proposed access easement tied to a replat was recorded without required documentation; staff said the planning commission had approved a document but the planning‑commission chair hesitated to sign. Commissioners directed staff to obtain a missing exhibit and circulate the draft for an email vote.
A property owner told the Cole County Commission on June 2 that she was not notified and did not consent to a proposed access easement recorded with a replat of Lot 3 of the Fitzpatrick Subdivision and asked the county to correct the record before her June 9 court date.
Staff background: A staff member presented a packet of documents including a map of the replat, a draft resolution prepared by counsel (David Bandra) and related emails. The staff presentation said the planning commission previously made a motion authorizing the planning‑commission chair to execute a document drafted by counsel, but the planning‑commission chair later declined to sign because of legal advice. Staff told the county commission the county holds ultimate authority to act on planning‑commission recommendations for unincorporated areas.
Public comment: The property owner said she learned of the easement only when her father was asked to sign; she said she never authorized an easement and that the recorded replat creates an encumbrance on her title. "I was not made aware of this easement until my dad came to me... I would never sign the easement," the property owner said, asking the commission to finalize the corrective document promptly because she has a court date on June 9.
Commission response and next steps: Commissioners and staff discussed remedies: circulating the draft resolution and attachments to planning‑commission members for an email vote; attaching the missing Exhibit A (legal description) once available; or, if necessary, preparing a county commission document. Staff said they would request the missing exhibit and circulate the draft for review. One official noted the statute governing planning‑board records and said a resolution form is acceptable if properly recorded.
Authorities and legal context: Participants referenced state statutes governing planning boards and the records of their resolutions and recommendations. Staff said the resolution and attachments must be on record for the planning commission; commissioners reminded one another that the county commission retains ultimate legislative and executive authority for unincorporated areas.
What was decided: Commissioners directed staff to obtain the missing legal description (Exhibit A), circulate the draft resolution and related documents via email for review, and proceed with signatures/attest once the exhibit is available. The planning‑commission chair’s signature was not guaranteed for the June meeting, and staff acknowledged the potential need for follow‑up.
Quoted: "The replat was approved with the understanding that or actually in my opinion subject to the proposed easement would be granted... We now know that's not going to happen," a staff member said. The property owner said: "That proposal was never signed. Period."
