Planning and Zoning staff told the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 22 they have sent more than 100 compliance letters about vegetation, fences and other obstructions in county rights‑of‑way and are revising code language and fees to reduce repetitive reviews.

Why it matters: vegetation, trees and private infrastructure in the county right‑of‑way can damage roads, impede snow removal and create sight‑distance hazards at intersections. Commissioners said inconsistent enforcement has produced confusion among residents and can create liability or safety problems for county crews.

What was discussed: Planning Director Milton (first name on record) said staff are updating building codes and fee schedules to address recurring administrative workload — for example, GIS had to re‑review one subdivision five times in a short period, prompting proposed “continual review” fees to offset extra staff time. He also reported 12 subdivisions and about 20 administrative splits so far this year.

Trees, fences and mailboxes: staff displayed examples of trees and trimming practices and noted some property owners had trimmed rather than removed established trees; in those cases staff and the public viewed trimming as a partial mitigation. Commissioners and staff debated setting a minimum setback (one commissioner suggested changing guidance to a 10‑foot minimum) and whether the county should require permits for existing encroachments or manage them case by case. The county also discussed requiring liability insurance or a permit with an annual fee for structures left in the right‑of‑way, following models used by neighboring jurisdictions.

Next steps and process clarity: Planning staff were asked to draft code language that aligns with day‑to‑day enforcement practices: allow some flexibility for longstanding plantings while requiring new construction to meet clear standards. Commissioners requested that new code changes be forward looking (apply to new installations) and include clearer notification procedures for property owners when removal or relocation is required.

What was not decided: no new ordinance was adopted at the meeting. The board asked planning staff to prepare proposed code revisions, fee changes and enforcement language for future meetings.