Commissioners press consultants on setbacks where roads are privately owned and encroachment permit requirements

Commission participants raised questions about how the draft zoning code handles setbacks and encroachment permits where a roadway is privately owned but used publicly. One participant described a continuous road that is county-owned in one stretch and privately owned in another and asked how setbacks and encroachment authority apply in those circumstances.

As one participant put it: "The road itself is owned by the landowners that it goes through." The presenter responded candidly that the consultant team "did not look at how to handle privately owned roads... publicly accessible roads on private property" and suggested that road requirements might be better addressed in easement agreements, county road standards, or another title of the code and that county staff and counsel should advise on how it has been handled in other situations.

Participants pointed to specific draft references (transcribed as '10 20 0 3 0' and related encroachment-permit language) and asked whether that text meant an encroachment permit would always be required. Several members argued that ownership differences along continuous roads (examples cited included East Callahan Road, East Side Road, Highway 3 and stretches from Aetna to Fort Jones) create practical enforcement and permitting questions that the planning commission should flag for county counsel and public works staff.

Next steps: presenters recommended the commission document these concerns and defer detailed road-ownership and encroachment policy to county staff, county counsel and, if needed, a separate code title addressing publicly accessible private roads.