Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Twin Lakes Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calhoun County board authorizes 5‑foot easements and hold‑harmless offer for North Twin Lakes properties
Summary
After debate over a proposed 10‑foot minimum, the Calhoun County Board authorized County Attorney Ben Smith to offer property owners a five‑foot easement on each side of Twin Lakes Road plus a five‑foot buffer and a hold‑harmless agreement; the motion passed 2–1.
The Calhoun County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to authorize a formal offer to property owners along North Twin Lakes Road that limits the county’s easement to five feet from the pavement edge on both the lake and house sides and adds a five‑foot buffer zone where no new structures may be built.
The motion, made by Chairman Dave George and seconded by Cory Ridgely, directs County Attorney Ben Smith to present the offer to affected owners and includes a hold‑harmless provision indemnifying the county from claims for damage arising from routine road clearing or repair performed in a reasonable manner; the county remains responsible for mailbox damage under existing policy and for direct physical contact damage to permanent structures. The board approved the motion 2–1, with Supervisor Scott Jacobs voting no.
The vote followed extended discussion among supervisors, county staff and nearby property owners. Calhoun/Sac County Engineer Nick Buse said his professional opinion is that “a minimum road easement width of ten feet (10 ft) beyond the edge of the paved road surface is needed,” citing the width of current snowplow and grader blade wings. Public commenter Scott Becker and others argued that blades and wings can extend beyond five feet, creating risk if easements are narrower.
County Attorney Ben Smith reviewed relevant legal context for the board, including what he described as Judge Wilke’s ruling that Calhoun County’s interest in Twin Lakes Road is limited to an easement rather than ownership and a referenced Supreme Court case, Bangert v. Osceola. Smith also explained that, in a small county, supervisors might sometimes have a beneficial interest with constituents and addressed conflict‑of‑interest concerns raised during the discussion.
Supervisors raised practical consequences of different easement widths: the engineer warned that snowplows and grader wings can extend seven to ten feet beyond a vehicle, that narrower easements could increase the need for manual snow removal or create added expense for the county, and that zoning rules for the affected properties would need revision if the board changes easement policy. Board members also noted Oakhurst Road has a 66‑foot established easement for contrast.
Under the authorized offer, the additional five‑foot buffer zone on each side would grandfather existing structures within that buffer but bar new construction there; property owners would be required to remove non‑permanent objects such as rocks or boulders in the lake‑side buffer. The motion also includes a clause requiring owners to indemnify the county for certain types of damage claims related to routine road work.
The board did not adopt a 10‑foot easement despite the engineer’s recommendation. Ben Smith will present the written offer to property owners for their consideration and signature. The matter may return to the board if owners reject the offer or if further legal or operational issues arise.
