Commissioners work through sticky subdivision issues

Posted 10/8/24

The explosion of new subdivisions created since the pandemic-driven stampede of new arrivals has led to more disputes between neighbors, with some landing before the Park County commissioners.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Commissioners work through sticky subdivision issues

Posted

The explosion of new subdivisions created since the pandemic-driven stampede of new arrivals has led to more disputes between neighbors, with some landing before the Park County commissioners.

Commissioner Lee Livingston, who’s in the final months of his third term on the board, said a big issue is people aren’t talking to neighbors as much anymore, if they know them at all.

“It’s a lack of communication,” Livingston said. “People don’t talk anymore.”

Sometimes, he said, he’ll try and ask a resident if they’ve even spoken to their neighbors about the issue before bringing it to the board — and that’s not always the case.

But even in cases where there’s been an attempt to resolve an issue beforehand, the county has had to settle a few recent disagreements.

“It’s just a fact of life when you move more people in, they don’t all get along,” Livingston said. “You crowd too many horses into your pasture, you’re going to have problems, especially with new horses.”

Recently, some more recent landowners have questioned existing or planned changes in their neighborhoods that, they feel, could alter the area they fell in love with.

A so-called “no build zone” within a subdivision on Lane 6 north of Powell has led to some disagreements between neighbors — and a September hearing before the board.

Within the zone, property owners cannot build structures over 12 feet high. The provision was originally implemented with the intent of protecting the views of Heart Mountain from the developer’s own home.

When Dusty Gravatt purchased a lot in the subdivision, he said the real estate agent and developer relayed that she would allow the no build areas on his lot to be reduced, and Gravatt planned to build a small horse shed in an area within that zone. However, the proposed changes were never officially recorded.

Further, people who subsequently purchased property in the subdivision bought it with the thought that their view of Heart Mountain would be protected due to those established no build zones, said attorney Colin Simpson; he represented one such couple, David and Brittney Hyland, who bought a neighboring lot to Gravatt’s within the last few years.

“We all value views in Park County, as do the Hylands,” Simpson said.

Another neighbor, Debra Fitzpatrick, who initially supported allowing more construction on the Gravatt property in 2021, told commissioners she now opposes the change. Fitzpatrick said neighbors have been good about working with each other to not block views of Heart Mountain. She also said she and her husband moved to Wyoming to experience a better community, neighborly mindset.

“We live in Powell, work in Powell and we are part of the community,” Fitzpatrick said. “We moved here specifically for getting out of Oregon because people were making changes.”

Commissioners ultimately declined to allow an amendment to the subdivision’s plat to reduce the “no build zone.”

County Clerk Colleen Renner explained the importance of reminding developers to have their documents recorded at the end of another subdivision approval.

“When the public isn’t made aware of what’s out there, that isn’t legal,” she said.

The discussion came just after the resolution of a bitter dispute between other rural Powell neighbors regarding an unpermitted and possibly failing septic system that served one residence but was partially located on a neighbor’s property. That matter was somewhat resolved by the Department of Environmental Quality, which determined the users of the system had a failing tank they would have to replace. In light of that, a majority of commissioners voted against leveling sanctions against the users of the septic system.

The decision very clearly did not satisfy the neighbor who had complained.

Comments