Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Badlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Badlands subdivision; residents raise fence and groundwater concerns
Summary
The board approved a 34‑lot subdivision called the Badlands north of Sunlight Road, subject to a condition and findings; public commenters pressed the commission about private fences within an 80‑foot easement and about local well water reliability.
The Laramie County Board of County Commissioners approved a subdivision permit and preliminary plat for the Badlands, a proposed 34‑lot residential subdivision on roughly 349.82 acres north of Sunlight Road, at its April 15 meeting. The proposal would create 34 residential tracts averaging about 10.10 acres each.
Justin Arnold of Laramie County Planning said staff found the application met the county's subdivision criteria and that the Laramie County Planning Commission recommended approval 4‑0 on March 27. The record cites Wyoming statutes and county land‑use regulations governing subdivision procedures; staff noted that road improvements and a drainage study were completed in review and that agency comments had been addressed. The application included a requirement to install a cistern on the eastern region of the property; staff and the applicant indicated public‑safety funds were expected to cover the cistern and that the local fire district (Laramie County Fire Authority) would perform maintenance.
Public comment focused on two issues: private fences that residents said had been built within the recorded 80‑foot easement (Painted Sky Road) and concerns about groundwater and existing well yields. Resident David Webster, who lives at 2087 Painted Sky Road, asked who would pay to move or rebuild fence lines if the county requires the road be widened to county standards; he said his perimeter fencing is a higher‑standard built fence and would be costly to move. Several other neighbors described prior well problems, low aquifer yields and concerns that additional residential build‑out could further stress groundwater supplies.
County staff and the applicant said a right‑of‑way permit will be required during road design and that the permit and design process should identify whether fences are within the needed footprint. Public Works indicated the right‑of‑way permit design will show impacts and that the plan could include fence relocation details; staff suggested the normal right‑of‑way review process would be used to determine final alignment and any required changes. County Attorney Martin Voss said the easement language suggests a form of common‑law dedication and explained that adverse‑possession claims against public dedications typically do not apply to government‑dedicated road surfaces; he said he had not completed legal research to definitively answer the fence‑adverse‑possession question for this specific easement.
Commissioner Thompson moved approval conditioned on one staff condition and adoption of staff findings of fact; the board approved the subdivision permit and plat on roll call (ayes from Commissioners Heath, Hollingshead, Thompson, Zwonitzer and Chairman Malm).
Why it matters: the subdivision will add a new 34‑lot residential development in an area subject to groundwater recharge considerations and existing private easements. Residents asked for clarity about fence relocation responsibility and water availability; county staff pointed to the standard right‑of‑way permitting and road‑design processes as the route to resolve those details.
Next steps: the applicant will complete design and right‑of‑way permitting; public‑works staff and the developer will finalize road alignment and any fence relocation plan. The county indicated the planned cistern will be installed with public‑safety funds and maintained by the fire district.
