Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Roadway Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Huerfano County to halt 'dangerous' driveway on County Road 120
Summary
A resident told commissioners a newly installed driveway serving a 97-site development on County Road 120 near Maria Lake violates county roadway standards and creates a safety hazard at the top of a hill; staff and commissioners said they would review the matter.
Michael Bigpond, a resident of County Road 120, told the Huerfano County Board of Commissioners on April 1 that a newly installed driveway approximately 2 miles north of Highway 10 is “dangerous and illegal” and serves a planned 97-site development.
Bigpond said he first contacted land‑use staff on Feb. 10 after noticing the work, then followed up with Road and Bridge staff. He said the permit application lacked a project engineer, did not list driveway plans or a culvert, did not show stopping‑sight measurements, and that county staff had not exercised physical oversight of the work. “Adding an intersection at the top of the hill is asking for an accident,” he said, urging the commission to “move this driveway or shut it down until a properly engineered access can be designed to the county standards of Section 19.”
Bigpond gave commissioners a packet of maps, photos and excerpts from Section 19 of the Huerfano County Roadway Design and Construction Standards and described a timeline in which he reported the new access to county staff on Feb. 10 and again on Feb. 19. He told the board that on March 20 he saw markers for a second driveway and that two County Road and Bridge staffers later visited the site. Bigpond said Road and Bridge staff told him they had already granted the access permit and that he should bring his concerns to the commissioners.
A county staff member at the meeting said staff would follow up; commissioners did not take immediate formal action during the public comment period. The transcript records the resident’s request that the county either relocate the second driveway farther south or close it until an engineered access meeting the requirements of Section 19 is completed.
The resident identified specific missing items from the permit record: no listed project engineer, no driveway plans or profiles, no culvert noted, and no recorded stopping‑sight distance measurement. He said the landowner completed a land sale before a permit was approved and that two driveways currently exist at the location. The packet Bigpond provided includes photos and page references he said were drawn from Section 19 of the county roadway standards.
Commissioners said they would look into the matter; staff did not provide a definitive timeline at the meeting for any enforcement or corrective action.
