Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners uphold county engineer's denials for three 6 Hills Ranch access and permit appeals
Summary
After a contested hearing, the court upheld the county engineer's denials of access/driveway and development permit applications for Tracts 7 and 10 (each 4-1) and for Tract 34 (3-2). Staff said denials were based on inability to verify lawful division under county development rules and safety/drainage concerns; developers and lot owners argued permits and 9‑1‑1 addresses were being unfairly withheld.
Kendall County commissioners on July 28 considered three administrative appeals by lot owners in the 6 Hills Ranch development contesting the county engineer's denials of access/driveway, address, and development-permit applications. After a full hearing with testimony from the developer's representative, individual lot owners and county staff, the court upheld the engineer's denials for Tract 7 (vote 4-1), Tract 10 (4-1) and Tract 34 (3-2).
Attorney and developer representatives argued owners were being denied basic property rights — access, 9-1-1 addresses and ability to develop — and said lot owners had paid taxes, insurance and design costs while their applications stalled. Jay Patterson, speaking for Sutherland Kendall County LLC and the affected lot owners, said the denials were unfair to property owners who bought legally‑sized parcels: "These owners have done nothing wrong... They bought legally exempt property, submitted proper applications, and are being punished for a dispute they're not part of," he said.
County engineering staff and general counsel explained the office had been named as a defendant in litigation over whether the overall development must be platted, and staff said they could not verify on the paperwork presented that the properties had been legally divided under section 3.1 of the county development rules. Staff also raised traffic‑safety, drainage and collective access concerns when considering access permits for a proposed 35‑lot development. General counsel and the engineer said the denials were issued to preserve applicants' right to appeal to the court while giving the county a clear record; commissioners voted to uphold the denials, and staff said they would work with affected owners on temporary addresses and steps to resolve completeness issues where possible.
The court's rulings allow the applicants to pursue appellate rights; staff emphasized existing residences can continue using existing access and the county will work to issue temporary addresses for occupied homes if necessary.
