Neighbors press concerns as county weighs variance to allow more units, emergency egress at Palmer Gulch Road
Loading...
Summary
A large public hearing over developer Russell Johnson's request to exceed the county's '40-unit' limit on a dead-end road and to record an emergency egress easement produced strong neighborhood opposition, legal questions about private easements and a continuation to May 19 for more negotiation and drafting.
Russell Johnson, a local developer, asked the Pennington County Commission for a variance to allow more-than-40 dwelling units on a currently dead-end segment of Palmer Gulch Road and to record an emergency egress easement that he said would provide a second access for emergency ingress and egress. Johnson told the commission he would absorb the cost to create a two-way, all-weather emergency corridor and said he had gathered letters of support from local residents and Hill City officials.
"We're creating something that doesn't exist," Johnson said, describing a recorded 33-foot-wide easement with a 20-foot improved surface and an unlocked gate the local fire department would be able to open. He told commissioners his team was also willing to drop unit counts if required and said he had already proposed mitigations to improve safety.
Neighbors and nearby property owners contested the plan, saying the proposed easement is private, that gates and restrictive language in the existing easement limit public use and that a gated emergency corridor may not be available to all residents during an emergency. Vic Alexander of Hill City said the planned easement "is not a day-to-day use road" and warned the mitigation would not eliminate the dead-end character of Palmer Gulch Road.
Planning staff told the board the request did not meet the administrative variance standards and recommended denial, but recommended the board consider the matter because the applicant had proposed mitigating measures. State's Attorney Tyler Sobzak flagged legal issues in the recorded easement language, noting the gate clause and the easement's emergency-triggering language could limit its usefulness in some emergency scenarios.
Commissioners debated whether the variance should be decided before a planned unit development (PUD) application or handled together. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to approve the variance without a clearer, recorded easement that included public emergency access and language vetted by the grantee of the private easement. After extended public testimony and back-and-forth between the developer, planning staff, and the state's attorney, the board voted to continue the item to the May 19, 2026 meeting to give the applicant time to negotiate easement language and return with revised documents.
The board's continuance directs the developer to work with affected landowners and planning staff and made clear that any permanent relief will require either a recorded public easement or a demonstrably enforceable emergency access arrangement acceptable to emergency responders. The PUD process and the final allowable unit count will be considered later in light of those outcomes.
