Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and landowner object to Hunter Lake Acres plat; board delays decision
Summary
Residents and an easement owner pressed the county over driveway access and vegetation removal rights tied to a 66-foot ingress/egress easement on the proposed seven‑lot Hunter Lake Acres preliminary plat; staff confirmed legal access but the board laid the matter over to June 24 to allow neighbors to negotiate civil issues.
County staff presented a preliminary plat for "Hunter Lake Acres," a conventional seven‑lot subdivision on a roughly 26.5‑acre parcel in Section 22 of Wolford Township and recommended approval after a unanimous Planning Commission/BZA recommendation. "The request is for the preliminary plat of Hunter Lake Acres ... The request is to approve a conventional design preliminary plat consisting of 7 lots," Land Services staff member Chris Pence told the board, noting lot dimensions and the 150‑foot setback required for the natural‑environment lake.
At multiple points, board members pressed staff about driveway locations and how access from County Road 30 would be managed. Pence said the proposal had been reviewed with the highway planner and that "they had the right access points to County 30." He also said staff had a title commitment showing a 66‑foot ingress/egress easement benefiting the property to the north.
An easement owner, Carrie Hoffman of 19460 County Road 30, told the board she had consulted a land attorney and that the easement did not, in her view, authorize removal of trees or other vegetation. "Giving easement to a neighbor does not grant the right to cut down your trees unless the specific easement allows for such action," Hoffman said, adding that she had not been asked for permission to remove vegetation and had previously received litigation from R and R Construction.
County counsel and staff told the board that the existence of the easement is a title issue the county can confirm, but that decisions about vegetation removal and the precise scope of rights over private land are civil matters for the property owners or a court. "We determine is there access. There's an easement. How the property owners deal with that is not within the context of the county," the county attorney (Stephanie) said.
Another longtime resident, Pauline Clarine Rawlings of 19636 County Road 30, urged the board to consider the lake's ecology and the neighborhood impact of dividing the parcel into seven lots. "It's an environmental lake ... 7 plots on this tiny area doesn't make any sense whatsoever," she said, describing the lake as small and sensitive.
A commissioner initially moved to adopt the preliminary plat and received a second, but after public comments and additional questions the mover and seconder withdrew the motion. The chair said he would pull the item and place it on the June 24 agenda to allow further conversations among neighbors and officials. The board did not adopt the plat at this meeting.
The board’s action: the matter was laid over to the June 24 board meeting for further consideration and local parties were encouraged to negotiate remaining civil and access issues before that date.
