Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Drainage Easement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident raises concerns about structures in Harpers Landing drainage easement

Daggett County Planning and Zoning Board · March 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Harpers Landing property owner asked the Planning & Zoning Board to allow construction within a 25‑foot drainage easement after he said structures appear to occupy the easement; county staff and nearby landowners disputed visible flows and called for engineering records and legal review.

Chad Reed, chair of the Daggett County Planning & Zoning Board, opened discussion after a resident raised questions about a 25‑foot utility/drainage easement on the west side of Harpers Landing.

Steve Wood presented a plat marking lots he believes contain structures built in the easement and said he could not find records locating drainage pipe placement. He told the board he had asked the original developer and received no drainage‑pipe location records; he also said Union Telephone and Bridger Valley Electric reported their facilities were not located in that easement as he understood it. Broadbent Ranch representative Hugh Stratmann said the subdivision contains three different drainage systems and that he has not observed water flowing from them in recent years. Daggett County Road Department staffer Sean Hughes reported a small flow at a line across Highway 43 on the south side.

Board members emphasized the need for documentary and engineering records before any change. Chair Reed said the county should search for plans that show the location of existing french drains and asked that the county attorney review liability and that engineering support be obtained. Commissioner Randall Asay noted drainage pipes were required as a condition of subdivision approval. The board did not take formal action on allowing construction in the easement and asked staff to locate records and involve the county attorney and possibly an engineer.

The key technical details the board asked staff to confirm included the 25‑foot rear easement boundary, whether existing drainage pipes are recorded, and whether a reduced build setback (proposed by the resident as 10 feet from the rear property line) would interfere with drainage or utilities. The board scheduled follow‑up review once record searches and engineering input are available.