Residents along Mill Creek still have concerns over proposed temporary and permanent easements associated with the logjam removal project. Union County officials said there is no need for concern, but there will be more opportunities for discussion at the next hearing tentatively slated for February.
(Journal-Tribune photo by Kevin Behrens)
—
Questions still linger regarding easements related to the Mill Creek logjam project but the Union County Commissioners said residents shouldn’t worry.
At the regular meeting of the board earlier this week, Paris Township Trustee Steve Westlake spoke on behalf of landowners, sharing concerns about the permanent or temporary easements on properties within the proposed project area. The easements, outlined by the state, would be required to carry out ongoing maintenance on the creek following its eventual cleanup.
Although the commissioners voted in December to approve the logjam petition, it was only one of a series of boxes to check before the project officially moves forward.
Westlake said residents recently came to him concerned that, once granted, the easements would allow free access to properties along the creek with little room for objection. He said some residents cited a plan previously supported by county officials outlining land along Mill Creek as future sites for trails and other recreational activities.
“I think what these landowners are saying, before they agree to anything, they want to know that that easement contains language that will never, as long as that property is deeded to them, that part within the easement, is not accessible to a port-authority or anyone else that may see that as a public use within the easement,” he said.
Westlake said he talked with township residents who made several references to the Union County Trail and Greenway Master Plan, created in 2014, as a source of concern.
The goal of that plan was to expand trails and greenways across the county and “identify a variety of opportunities for new outdoor amenities.” A portion of the plan does list a “Mill Creek Greenway” shared-use path of approximately 28 miles that would “establish recreational amenities and trails along various segments of Mill Creek.”
Westlake said residents had fears that, once the easements were put in place, the land could then be snatched and repurposed for that project. He asked if language could be added to the easements that better draw boundaries and protect property owners. County officials said state statutes already outline boundaries but more than that, new language would be unnecessary because the easements exist solely for maintenance purposes.
“It is a specific purpose only to which that is not a blanket easement,” said Commissioner Dave Burke. “We would have to issue another type of easement to do what you’re talking about.”
Burke cited the Ohio Revised Code, which says of ditch maintenance, “In the cleaning, repair, and other maintenance work on drainage improvements, the persons whose duty it is to perform the maintenance work may go upon the adjoining or abutting lands within the permanent easement necessary for proper operation of the required machinery, tools, motor vehicles, conveyances, or other equipment.”
He went on to say any decisions made to alter the ditches in any way would ultimately have to be made by the commissioners.
“We aren’t doing that,” Burke said. “There are only three people in this room that control county ditches and you’re looking at all three of them. The governor can’t even do anything with county ditches.”
The ORC outlines the requirements, specifying that, even in the event of an emergency, the county engineer can change distances only “with the approval of the board of county commissioners.”
Burke also said that, because the county oversees all the ditches, it may technically already have the ability to it access it anyway.
“I’m thinking these easements already exist because it’s a county ditch,” he said. “I’m thinking because of this state statute, it already exists and has existed for God knows how long, that technically that easement was kind of already there, it just never was exercised. Now that we’re going to come in and clean out the ditch, we’re going to do our work.”
Westlake said he appreciated the commissioners’ clarifications and would take the information back to residents.
“I’m just trying to knock some of these questions out. That’ll go a long way, what you’re saying,” he said. “For the townships, thank you.”