John Scarffe, Gilpin County.   The Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners heard the first readings of resolutions regarding wildfire hazards, zoning codes and emergency and evacuation routes over private property during a regular meeting at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at the Gilpin County Courthouse. The Board also welcomed new County Manager Abel Montoya.

The Board hired Montoya as County manager on August 21, and he started the job on Monday, August 27. On September 11, the Board welcomed Montoya with refreshments.

Montoya thanked the Board for his first two weeks, in which he has met with County elected officials and toured facilities. “It’s been a joy.”

Montoya toured the courthouse and sat down with the finance director to begin budget discussions for next year. Additionally, he has discussed forest trails by the Moffat Tunnel, met with Community Development and staff and visited with the Fair Coordinator.

During a Public Hearing, Community Development Director Stephen Strohminger introduced the first reading of a revision to wildfire zoning regulations. He said that after three meetings of the Planning Commission, the Commission voted to move this forward as a proposed revision to the zoning codes.

At the request of the Board, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed zoning code revisions related to wildfire hazard regulations, according to background. The Planning Commission was asked to investigate if provisions for defensible space could be incorporated into the zoning regulations.

The Planning Commission used the Colorado State Forest Service Quick Guide series on fire and protecting your home from wildfire, Strohminger said. These are general provisions that encompass the entire county and are building requirements.

The County won’t issue a certificate of completion until the zone is clear for wildfire mitigation. Property owners can appeal to the Board of Adjustments, he said.

For building permits, the new regulation would state that certificates of occupancy and completion will not be issued for a new dwelling, the replacement of an existing building or for additional decks, porches or structures of 400 square feet or more, until the zone has been implemented according to design standards.

According to the design standards, the width of the zone extends a minimum of 30 feet outward from the structure or to the property line. The zone cannot contain above ground propane tanks of 250 gallons or greater in size, firewood, combustible material, slash, wood chips and other woody debris.

Any trees kept in the zone must be 15 feet from any structure, 10 feet from the ground and 20 feet from other limbs, according to the regulation.

Nonflammable ground cover and a green, reflective sign mounted at the road four to five feet from the ground must be installed.

Commissioner Linda Isenhart said she would like to do a public relations campaign about this. Commissioner Gail Watson pointed out that the resolution has only one reference to zone one. Strohminger said that is a typo. The Planning Commission intended it to be referred to as simply the zone.

The CSU extension agent has been engaged in this, Strohminger said. Board Chair Ron Engels suggested making the standards written as statements of direction as opposed to instructions. Make them requirements.

Engels said that to be clear, this is for new construction and would not have any impact on anyone else, and Strohminger agreed. Watson pointed out that this is inconsistent with what she’s heard from the Forest Service.

Engels suggested sending this back with perhaps a zone one and zone two.

Isenhart pointed out that when you’re talking about new construction, so much excavation is going on with people going in and out, that zones are almost created by accident. Strohminger said that the extension agent agreed. With all the equipment involved in construction, it doesn’t add much more cost.

County Attorney Jim Petrock said the regulations reference a special exception that can be applied for. It needs to incorporate specific criteria. Engels said it should call out what conditions would trigger a request for a variance.

Watson suggested asking the Planning Commission, Forest Service and extension agent to look at this again and possibly keep it restricted to zones that have already been established, and the Board approved.

Petrock introduced the first reading of an ordinance regarding emergency and evacuation routes over private property. The County has identified emergency and evacuation routes in existing developments and subdivisions, according to the ordinance. Private property owners have agreed to allow the routes to be used for emergencies and evacuations.

Emergency routes will be marked with signage specifying that use is restricted to emergency and evacuation routes only. The routes remain private property and are not available to the public until the Gilpin County Sheriff’s Office, Board of Trustees or County Emergency Operation Manager declares the emergency route open to the public, states the ordinance.

Petrock said he had conversations with County Emergency Manager Sgt. Kevin Armstrong, who requested an ordinance to give law enforcement more ability to enforce the laws regarding routes established by homeowner’s associations and subdivisions, which are to be used only for emergency routes, and to be able to ticket those who use them illegally.

Engels asked if there will be signage that the routes are for emergency use only. Armstrong said he is working on signage with the wildfire response plans. Engles said this will be an encouragement for people to allow their property to be accessed for emergency routes.

Armstrong fears that people will continue to use these routes with ATVs, and he wants to work with the Sheriff’s Office to prohibit that. Engels said the Board can approve this on First Reading and make changes. He asked:

“What is the provision for tracking these routes and changes from time to time?”

Watson said they have a list and a map that is part of the operations plan. Armstrong pointed out that community members are concerned about this being made public, causing people to use them without authorization.

Engels said: “If there are incognito emergency routes, I have a real concern with that.” Watson said it’s something that the residents are aware of, and Armstrong said it’s subdivision specific.

Montoya told the Board this is an important topic. The Commissioners have to know where the routes are. They can agree on something in between, but not put it on the website, and can handle information sharing.

There is a way to identify and share with neighborhood meetings and direct mailings but not publish them, Montoya said. The routes will be marked by signs, so a visitor would be able to find them in an emergency.

Armstrong said the main thing is to be able to enforce it if someone is using an emergency route when it’s not an emergency. Isenhart said she likes the idea of having a meeting and direct mailing, and then contacting Able if they have questions.

Montoya said he didn’t see anything about keeping an emergency route cleared of physical barriers. Some gates are padlocked shut. Armstrong said one of the options is a padlock and someone can cut that padlock in an emergency.

Petrock said they have lots of questions, so it would be best to continue the first reading. Some points have been raised about private property owners.

Engels suggested a public meeting with the property owners, and Watson said she thinks it should be staff reaching out to them and not a public meeting.

Petrock said the process for identifying the routes is what is missing from this ordinance. It doesn’t say how you determine where they are. That process should be addressed in the document.

Armstrong said that some subdivisions are eager to get involved and some are reluctant. They need to wait for Anchor Point, a firm doing a study on emergency routes, to identify them based on old roads and service roads. That report will be acquired from Anchor Point.

His next meeting with Anchor Point is on November 29. The Commission agreed to postpone the item until further discussions and staff has figured out a plan.

During his legal report, Petrock told the Board that Mr. Dirk Larsen, a Russell Gulch property owner charged with multiple zoning violations, did not appear at the trial regarding that matter, reportedly due to being out of the country. The trial was set to take place on September 10, 2018, so he is in default, and the judge asked Petrock to prepare an order with six separate violations, a $1,000 fine for each violation and $100 per day, so the financial consequences are substantial.

If the fines are not paid, they will be added to his property tax. The order will require him to clean up, and if he doesn’t he could have more penalties and a possible jail sentence, Petrock said.

The County has signed a Memorandum of Agreement for a sheriff’s shooting range, and the owner has agreed to let the sheriffs use it indefinitely, Petrock said. “We might want to purchase this. It’s not a large piece of property.” For now, he suggested leaving it as status quo.

(Originally published in the September 20, 2018, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)