Commissioners debate Cottonwood Hollow road status, private-road agreements and addressing rules
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Planning staff and commissioners reviewed a 1996 letter about Cottonwood Hollow road acceptance, noted the easement width discrepancies and discussed the county's private-road maintenance and addressing requirements and how those affect future development.
County planning staff and commissioners examined a longstanding road question in Cottonwood Hollow and discussed broader private-road and addressing rules that can affect lot splits and access.
Staff presented a 1996 letter from subdivision representatives that asked the county to accept a portion of 4150 East as a county road if the developer provided a larger cul-de-sac and associated easements. The text of the letter, read into the record, said the subdivision had widened a cul-de-sac to 60 feet and asked the county to accept and maintain the road after two additional items were provided: an as-built plot showing the cul-de-sac and engineering and easement work to increase the cul-de-sac diameter to about 90 feet. The letter was acknowledged and signed in 1996 by subdivision representatives.
Planning staff said the road currently is shown as a 15-foot easement on the plat and that the subdivision has not replatting the road to 60 feet county-wide as the letter referenced. Staff said the county has not formally accepted the road through a recorded board action and that recent changes to signage and county maintenance (the county changed a green county-road sign to a blue private-road sign and stopped plowing) had prompted complaints from residents.
Commissioners and staff discussed the legal and practical steps required to accept the road—staff said a road validation and survey would be needed to confirm a 60-foot width across affected properties and that replatting or signed easements by property owners would likely be required. Staff emphasized that "one commissioner cannot" accept and adopt a county road without board action and that private-road maintenance agreements and addressing requirements affect emergency access and saleability of lots.
Planning staff also described a separate, recurring problem in other subdivisions where private roads were created and private-road maintenance agreements were not drafted while a single owner still held all lots; later, when ownership is split, neighbors sometimes cannot agree on a maintenance plan and roads become a point of contention.
Staff said the county will contact affected property owners about private-road maintenance agreements in particular cases and suggested reviewing addressing and building-permit processes to require maintenance agreements earlier when a private road is anticipated.
No final board action was taken at the meeting to accept Cottonwood Hollow roads; staff said they would follow up with property owners and outline the requirements for road validation, replatting and easement documentation.