County discusses forced approach relocations

A Custer resident is being forced to move the approach to his home because it encroaches on Forest Service property, and there may be many more that follow suit in the coming months.
The issue was discussed at the Jan. 10 meeting of the Custer County Commission, an issue that was largely tabled from the previous commission meeting due to planning director Terri Kester’s absence.
“I just want it to be the same in our office moving forward,” Kester said. “It’s not the first and won’t be the last one.”
Kester said the Forest Service frequently requests easement information from the county planning office, and found this one in particular crossed Forest Service property and wanted it moved.
The landowner in question purchased an approach permit from the county to move his approach, but the fee was put on hold until the county determines how to deal with these approaches that have been in place for years but are now required to be moved due to their encroachment on Forest Service property.
Kester wanted to know if moving forward the commission planned to waive the approach permit for those who are being forced to move them, and the cost of moving 911 address signs was also discussed.
“I don’t know if they would just start driving on it or throw a (911) number on it or if the Forest Service gave them an easement and it was lost or not filed and now the Forest Service is coming back saying ‘you can’t use that,’” Kester said.
County highway superintendent Jess Doyle said he had sent Forest Service officials a string of emails regarding the issue, but has not received an answer.
“The Forest Service is forcing the move on an approach, like many we have seen, that has been there forever,” Doyle said.
Doyle said the approach in question “started life” as a two-track Forest Service trail going beyond the private property up into the forest for what was likely logging or mining purposes.
In the meantime, the private section was developed and made into a residence with a home, and Doyle said he assumes the person who developed the land decided to use the already-there two-track rather than disturbing more land through the Forest Service.
“This is part of my argument to the Forest Service. I don’t know what they think they are gaining,” Doyle said. “It’s not like it’s an access giving somebody the ability to drive up into the Hills. We’re talking about 20 feet of an encroachment.”
Doyle said the Forest Service cannot provide a survey that was done on the property, which he said could lead to  contesting the requested moving of the approach.
“If you don’t know when the survey was done or where the lines are for sure, how can you tell someone to move?” he asked.
Doyle questioned what the sudden interest in moving the approaches were, with commissioner Mike Busskohl saying it had to do with the Forest Service’s Land Access Management Plan, which allowed for a 10-year window for landowners to prove their access was grandfathered in. Custer County’s window closed several years ago.
Doyle said he felt these issues should have been brought up sooner, and questioned whether it was the Forest Service that should have to pay for the moves.
“You have to pay to move it, which is not cheap,” he said. “On top of that, the Forest Service (sometimes) gives them a fine for encroaching on (its) property.”
Add to that the additional $250 the landowner has to pay the county for a new approach permit, should the county not waive the fee.
“I know I’m being way too passionate about it, but it doesn’t seem right to me,” he said. “They are forcing the move. They should pay.”
The commission eventually voted to waive the approach permit fee for the approach in question, and indicated it would discuss waiving the fee on a case-by-case basis as they are brought forward.
Kester also discussed potentially raising some of the fees in her office, as well as enforcing new standards as to who can install a septic system in the county.
Installers will be required to provide proof of certification, liability insurance and an excise tax number. The latter two requirements are likely to chase away homeowners from installing their own systems, which has been a recurring problem in the county.
Commissioner Mike Linde asked how the planning office would keep track of those records, with Kester saying the installer would bring them in annually and the county would keep them on file. Certifications from the state for installing the systems are good for five years.
“You are really making hoops to jump through,” Linde said.
Kester reiterated having homeowners attempt to put in their own wastewater systems is “a pain.”
“They want to save a dollar. They don’t want to wait for an installer. Then when they put it in or try to put it in and it’s not correct they get mad at us that it’s not correct,” she said. “We were visiting with (the county) planning commission to come up with ideas how we could make it a little easier on our office and the installers who actually do it for a living.”
Kester said an improperly-placed system runs the risk of contaminating the landowners’ well, as well as neighboring wells.
“It could be a potential health hazard,” she said. “It’s just a pain. That’s a nice way to put it.”
Linde said he understood the homeowners’ view on the situation, as well.
“He calls up for contractors and they all say ‘we’re four months out,’ or ‘we are six months out,’” Linde said. “He wants to get something done. I guess I think you’re making it a little tougher than it should be.”
Some fees on the wastewater end are also rising. A permit will go from $250 to $500, a component fee (replacing part of the system) from $150 to $300, a failed inspection fee/reinspection fee from $100 to $250, and the fine for installing a system without a permit or as a noncertified installer will rise from $1,000 to $2,000.
Commissioner Mark Hartman said the fees are more in line with other counties, and as far as homeowners being discouraged from installing their own systems, Custer County is not the first county to do so.
“A lot of counties are having issues with homeowners (installing their own systems),” he said. “We’re not really stepping out and blazing a path here. We are trying to save ourselves headaches but yet we’re comparing to what other people are doing.”
Craig Hindle said he believed the county should also consider raising the cost of a building permit, saying they are “pretty low” for the county.
Hartman said he isn’t a fan of raising the building permit fee, because property taxes are so high in the county. While he said the permits should cover the cost of the planning office’s work on them, the county should not make money on them. It’s an issue likely to be discussed by the county’s planning commission.
A vote on the changes in the septic system rules and fees passed, with Linde casting the dissenting vote. The changes won’t take place until March, and all installers will be notified of the upcoming changes in advance.