Jefferson County board pauses Lost Trails campground special-exception after E‑911, boundary and water concerns

Sam Simons, the applicant seeking a special‑exception to transfer a 2021 conditional use permit to Lost Trails LLC, told the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals on an application he would “withdraw my application right now, just table it” and asked to pause the process while he works on site identification, water and boundary matters.

The request followed a lengthy hearing in which board members and staff clarified that an approved special exception would apply to the Lost Trails entity and replace the existing conditional use permit, and that a denial would leave the originally granted conditional use permit in effect. The board also heard technical concerns about emergency (E‑911) addressing, the number and type of camping units on the site, and a separate water‑company dispute that the applicant said had compelled him to drill a well.

The matter matters because the board heard that E‑911 addressing practices affect first‑responder routing, that existing structures could be nonconforming under newer rules, and that unresolved utility or ownership questions could change who legally may use the property. The board urged clearer on‑site identification and boundary resolution before taking a final land‑use vote.

What the board considered

At the hearing, a staff member disclosed that they represent both county bodies and Rikers Ridge Water Company, a current client, and asked the board to acknowledge the disclosure. The staff member said they had not identified any conflict of interest but placed the disclosure on the record and noted the planning commission had executed the same disclosure earlier.

The hearing focused on Sam Simons’s request to have a special exception apply to Lost Trails LLC. A staff member told the board that if the special exception is approved it would “be applicable to the Lost Trails entity when it’s transferred,” and that a denial would leave the existing conditional use permit in place. The applicant repeatedly sought clarification about whether an approved special exception would eliminate the previously authorized permit; the staff member answered that approval would replace the current permit for that property.

Site layout, units and nonconforming features

Planning staff and the applicant discussed existing buildings and camp sites. The applicant said the property currently has six constructed sites — four with park‑model RVs and two additional campsites — and an existing metal building at the entrance that previously housed a property manager unit but now has water disconnected. The applicant said the metal building may be repurposed as office or storage and that cabins and other structures were built under the earlier permit and may now be considered nonconforming uses under the updated ordinance.

E‑911 addressing and first‑responder routing

The applicant read a letter from Brandon, the county 9‑1‑1 executive director, and explained Brandon’s position that the county’s E‑911 system does not routinely assign a separate street address to each campsite or unit on a single parcel. The applicant said Brandon’s review identified examples in the county where parcels have a single address rather than separate addresses for each unit. The applicant and several board members discussed alternatives that would improve first‑responder routing, including naming the private drive (for example, “Lost Trails Lane”) and assigning and posting unit numbers (A, B, 1, 2, etc.) at each campsite.

Water dispute and legal context

The applicant said correspondence from Rikers Ridge Water Company asserted that issuing multiple E‑911 addresses implied ten lots and would require ten separate water meter connections; the applicant said that interpretation led him to drill a well and incurred significant cost. The staff member’s initial disclosure identified Rikers Ridge Water Company as a current client and stated no adverse interest to the county had been found; the disclosure was placed on the record and previously executed before the planning commission.

Neighbor concerns and boundary marking

Neighbors and board members pressed the applicant about property lines and boundary marking. The applicant said trees on the line had been marked with purple paint and offered to work with neighbors on a petition fence under state law or to share the cost of a fence. Board members recommended clearly marking sites and resolving boundary lines before the applicant returned with a final site plan.

Procedural actions taken

While the Lost Trails application was tabled by the applicant, the board voted to adopt a 15‑day public notification period for related planning items. The board also recommended the applicant return with a clean site development plan, a clear plan for on‑site identification for emergency services, and resolution or documentation regarding water‑service obligations.

What’s next

The applicant said he is willing to cooperate with emergency‑services staff, neighbors and township officials to number and identify sites and to pursue a fence petition if neighbors agree. The board did not rule on the special‑exception merits and left the application in abeyance pending a resubmitted application or additional documentation.