Residents and county split over right‑of‑way rule that blocks chip‑sealing on County Road 760 East

Residents of County Road 760 East pressed the county on April 6 to find an exception to a longstanding 60‑ft right‑of‑way requirement after a single property owner declined to sign an easement that would allow the road to be widened for a chip‑seal treatment.

Jan Denu, representing roughly a dozen landowners and residents, told the Board of Commissioners that 11 of 12 property owners had signed roadway easements but one south‑end owner — whose parcel includes about 300 yards of the road — would not agree, leaving the group in limbo for county chip‑seal eligibility. Denu said the north portion of the road is already wide enough and that residents want the county to apply chip‑seal to the part that already meets standards so they could gain a safe “one way out.”

County staff and the county engineer described the scoring policy used to prioritize roads for treatment. The system ranks candidate roads annually across ten categories that include conversions cost, homes per mile, traffic, classification and the existence of complete right‑of‑way from intersection to intersection. Staff said the right‑of‑way requirement is the most heavily weighted category, intended to ensure safe road transitions and to allow the county to widen shoulders and move fences or trees if necessary.

Staff said they did an out‑of‑turn evaluation of County Road 760 East and preliminarily scored it a 90; however, other roads that have already obtained right‑of‑way will score higher and be treated sooner. Commissioners and staff said they will try additional outreach to the holdout owner but declined to make an exception to the right‑of‑way policy at this time because exceptions would undermine uniform safety standards.

Alternatives discussed included a homeowner co‑op to pay for materials at owner expense, county labor to supply the work once materials are paid for, and targeted county assistance to help negotiate easements. County estimates provided during the meeting put material cost at approximately $130,000 per mile (materials only, not labor or equipment).

What happened: No policy change or exception was approved at the meeting. Commissioners encouraged residents to continue outreach to the holdout landowner and offered to send county staff to meet with that owner. Staff offered to provide a detailed scoring sheet and a formal materials estimate if residents want to pursue a cost‑share or co‑op route.

Why it matters: The dispute illustrates a common local trade‑off: the county applies consistent road‑safety and right‑of‑way rules to manage long‑term maintenance costs and liability, but the rules can leave smaller groups of residents unable to advance a widely supported improvement because of a single holdout. Residents argued that the rule imposes an unreasonable delay and urged commissioners to consider change.

Next steps: Highway staff will provide the score sheet and material estimates to the residents and attempt further contact with the unsigned owner; residents may choose to fund materials themselves under the county’s existing co‑op option.