Get email alerts on the Sandbox Rv topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press county over noise, dust and permits as commission tables Sandbox RV plan
Summary
A proposed 175‑space RV park near Parker drew hours of public testimony alleging unpermitted events, dust, noise and trespass. Applicant says technical approvals (DEQ, wastewater, water) are in hand; commissioners unanimously tabled the sketch/CUP for further review.
Get email alerts on the Sandbox Rv topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Fremont County Planning & Zoning Commission tabled consideration of the rescheduled sketch plan and Class II Preliminary/Final Plan (file #26‑047) for Sandbox RV after more than two hours of testimony Wednesday evening that centered on alleged code violations, dust and safety concerns.
The applicant, represented by engineer Brent “Husk” Crowther and owner Peter Davis, described plans for an RV park on roughly 66 acres north of Parker, with amenities including a general store, showers, a small children’s play area, a dog park and a mini dirt‑bike track. “We’ve put everything we have ever had in our lives into this project,” owner Peter Davis said in rebuttal, asking the commission to consider the multiyear permitting and agency reviews the project team says it has completed. The application submitted to the county proposes up to 175 RV spaces; applicant testimony said earlier drafts proposed 186 but were scaled back because the proposed shower/restroom facilities only accommodate 175 units.
Neighbors and other members of the public urged denial or strict, enforceable conditions, saying the site has operated events and gatherings without required approvals and that weekend activity produced hazardous dust, persistent noise and frequent off‑road vehicle crossings across the narrow Red Road shoulder. “There have been numerous instances of dust, noise and general impedance of the enjoyment of our properties,” said resident Todd Layman, who described repeated dusty events and nighttime returns from dune riding.
County staff told the commission the application is a new submittal and that the Review Standard for a Class II permit is whether the submission demonstrates compliance with Appendix N (standards for RV parks) and other portions of the Development Code. Commissioners pressed the applicant on several technical points that could be enforced as permit conditions if the commission approves the project, including: whether retail and vendor hosting will be limited to park guests, how dry camping will be counted toward the 175‑spot limit, open‑space calculations (65% gross vs. 25% net), drainage plans for paved surfaces, and how noise limits from Appendix H will be met and monitored.
After questions, Commissioner John Pauly moved to table the item for further review; Commissioner J.C. Siddoway seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioners said they will reconvene in a follow‑up meeting to review additional material and potential conditions.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
