BOCC: Encroachments deemed discretionary
Shoshone County received a complaint from a local resident in the pictured area of Tomsche Avenue in Burke Canyon earlier this year regarding several encroachments. The Shoshone Board of County Commissioners recently ruled on the complaint, acknowledging the encroachments, but calling them discretionary, not mandatory.
Courtesy image
BURKE — After months of review, the Shoshone Board of County Commissioners made a ruling concerning complaints that they had received concerning property in the F Street/Tomsche Avenue region of Burke Canyon.
Earlier this year, an area resident had submitted a substantial list of complaints to both the Shoshone County Sheriff’s Office, as well as Prosecuting Attorney Keisha Oxendine concerning various encroachments and what she referred to as "nuisances.”
On Nov. 2, the BOCC met with members of Shoshone County Planning and Zoning, as well as those involved in the complaint to make their determination.
Among the list of offending encroachments and nuisances were a corner of a garage, trees, water spigots, utility poles, a basketball hoop, a garage, fences, and other various common neighborhood fixtures.
According to BOCC Chairman Mike Fitzgerald, the garage structure on the corner of F Street was deemed an encroachment. However, per I.C. 40-2319 there are two categories of encroachment defined within the statute; (1) discretionary removal or (2) mandatory removal (if the public right of way is considered an “open highway”).
“Based on evidence and observations, there is no evidence of public use of F Street, it is not maintained by the county, it is not on the ITD’s inventory of roads list, and the county does not receive monies for, nor expends money on, maintaining F Street,” Fitzgerald told the News-Press. “Therefore (it) is determined it is not an ‘open highway’ and is a discretionary encroachment.”
Commissioner John Hansen made a motion to have an official Letter of Notice of Encroachment drawn up to be submitted to Charles and Lanae Tatman, the owners of the garage in question, advising them of the encroachment, but letting them know that at this time the county is not requiring them to remove or alter their garage at this point — but could do so in the future if necessary.
When dealing with a situation such as this one, the BOCC weighs three specific pieces of criteria, those being; Do the reported issues cause a problem for the roadway and its function as a roadway? Does it cause a safety issue? Or are they hampering any sort of development in the area?
It would appear that while the Tatman’s garage met some of the criteria, it did not meet all of it based upon the BOCC decision.