Members of the commission were ultimately unable to make any move on what was brought before them, having only three commissioners in attendance and one of them declaring a conflict of interest.
The issue being addressed was a disagreement over an easement brought forward by developer Craig Whitlock, managing member of Site-West Development LLC.
Commissioners had approved a preliminary plat for his proposed Whitlock Industrial Park Subdivision project at the June 10 meeting. The preliminary plat had been approved with the condition of adding an 80-foot access easement on the south side of Block 1, Lot 2 of the property.
The easement would provide access for Dave and Janice Arnson, who sold Whitlock the 29.29-acre piece of land last year, to their property. Whitlock came to Tuesday's meeting with Rod Westrum of Site-West Development and a lawyer, Kent Reierson, to discuss their opposition to needing to provide the easement.
Before discussion started, commission chairman Dan Kalil told the other two commissioners in attendance, Martin Hanson and David Montgomery, that he has a conflict of interest in the matter due to having dealings with the Arnsons.
Janice Arnson, who was also in attendance Tuesday, spoke up before discussion started, saying "this issue was addressed and unanimously approved by the commission."
Arnson said she considered since it had already been dealt with, bringing it up was a waste of time and the matter should be dropped.
Kalil replied they should be allowed to have their say since they were on the agenda.
"County rules give anyone the right to come forward with any concerns. They should be allowed to state their piece," said Kalil.
Reierson went to the commission room podium and asked Whitlock about the easement issue.
Whitlock explained to the commission that planning and zoning had recommended approval of the plat, but had never said anything about the easement that the commission added to the motion in June. He added that he had already built a 900 foot road called Town and Country Lane as a north to south access connecting between the highway and the nearby Sunset Subdivision.
"I've already provided that easement, at considerable expense out of my own pocket," said Whitlock.
He said he didn't see the reason why he should have to provide a second easement on the south end of the property, where he said it would cut into land that could be developed.
The written agreement, contained in the commission packet from the June meeting, states:
"Grantors except and reserve the rights of ingress and egress form the adjacent highway right-of-way access point, as designated by the State Highway Department, which is located on the south boundary of the subject property, in order to assure access to said highway for Grantor's remaining property on the west of the subject property. Grantee shall furnish any access easement required by Grantors, and shall show the same either in an easement document or on a subdivision plat for the subject property."
Whitlock and Reierson said they felt the language was vague. Reierson added that they hadn't been allowed to put in a frontage road, so he asked why should they have to put in the easement when they've provided access already.
Discussion turned to whether or not this was a commission matter since they'd already voted on it.
"Being the one who seconded the original motion, I think that original motion should stand," said Montgomery.
Commissioner Hanson agreed.
"I don't see that anything's changed," said Hanson.
Hanson and Montgomery said they believed their complaint should be resolved in a courtroom, not in commission chambers at this point.
No motion was made, and the discussion ended.
Comments