Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners move to deny Ramble camp proposal after hours of public comment
Summary
After a multi‑hour public hearing with dozens of neighbors, wildlife experts and the applicant, commissioners moved and seconded a motion to deny Ramble Outdoors’ conditional use permit for a 30‑site campground at Pine Creek; the motion was recorded as moved and seconded but a roll‑call vote does not appear in the transcript.
County planners and the applicant outlined a plan by Ramble Outdoors to lease state trust land at Pine Creek and develop a 30‑site seasonal campground and RV park. Planner Brandon Wolf described staff recommendations that included a 500‑foot setback from Pine Creek and a limited operating season "the campground operation shall not be dead before May 1 and not and shall not continue after Labor Day on any given year," citing wildlife and fluvial concerns.
Applicant Dieter Erdman (vice president, Ramble Outdoors) said Ramble has operated campgrounds elsewhere and committed to wildfire mitigation and site management. "My name is Dieter Erdman. I'm, vice president of land and entitlements for Ramble Outdoors," he told the Board, and he said the company had invested in an $80,000 wildfire mitigation effort with the State Land Board and proposed propane or liquid‑fuel fire rings rather than solid‑fuel pits.
Residents and agency representatives urged denial or stricter conditions. Nearby landowners and ranchers described traffic and egress risks, fire danger, and wildlife impacts; one resident said they already experience trespass and campers on private property: "I have campers coming to my house setting up tents on my lawn," said Jacob Farber, a Pine Creek neighbor. The U.S. Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife submitted technical comments citing increased trailhead use, wildlife corridor sensitivity and recommended buffers.
During deliberation commissioners cited land‑use code standards, the demonstrated‑need criterion, public‑safety concerns and wildlife mitigation gaps. One commissioner said the application "does not meet those standards" under the County land‑use code and moved to deny; another commissioner seconded the motion. The transcript records the motion and second but does not show a board roll‑call vote in the provided segment. Commissioners requested written findings to support the action and staff follow‑up.
The Board also asked staff to provide any outstanding engineering, access or CDOT approvals and to prepare formal findings. The hearing record remains the official source for next steps; the Board indicated it would bring findings and any final vote language back to the public record in follow‑up meeting materials.
