Fremont County considers nuisance regulation to clear hazards from county road rights-of-way

Fremont County commissioners on Tuesday reviewed a draft nuisance regulation intended to give the county a formal tool to address hazards and obstructions in county road rights-of-way.

County staff said the draft targets a range of problems — abandoned vehicles, vehicles used for storage, unsafe mailboxes, haystacks and illegally installed septic systems — that staff currently address primarily through warning letters. The draft would establish a 45‑day process in which county officials identify a problem, notify the property owner and, if the issue is not corrected, hold a hearing before the board. "If at the end of that hearing you find there is a nuisance ... then we issue an order," the presenter said, adding that such orders would be filed with district court and could be appealed.

The draft includes enforcement tools the county lacks today, including the ability to seek a civil penalty of $100 per day for continuing violations. Staff said the intent is to give transportation and public-health officials more effective authority where safety is at risk; as the presenter put it, "these are issues that affect everyone in the county" and "the issue here is really public safety." Commissioners emphasized they expect discretion from staff and that the county attorney, transportation superintendent or public-health officer would have to identify a bona fide problem before the county would proceed.

Commissioners debated scope and implementation details. One commissioner asked why the draft singles out manufactured homes; staff replied the draft reflects legal differences in how certain units are classified and said a broader, more generic approach could be considered. Others warned that an enforcement approach that tried to retroactively regulate hundreds of existing access points or long-standing mailboxes would be both time-consuming and politically sensitive. Staff said the regulation could include grandfathering provisions but noted that an inventory and case-by-case analysis would be required.

The board directed staff to circulate the draft to relevant offices — including public health, the assessor and law enforcement — for feedback and to return with any suggested revisions. The presenter recommended starting a 45‑day public comment period and, if the board agrees, following that comment period with a public hearing before the board.

What happens next: commissioners agreed to share the draft more widely, take feedback from affected offices and consider final wording at a future meeting before formally initiating a comment period.