A dispute over a road in the Boulder Valley drew opposing sides to the Jefferson County Commission meeting April 25. Judging by the intensity of the speakers on both sides, Rocky Road is aptly named, and finding a solution may be a rocky road indeed. Both sides made it clear they would not hesitate to meet in court if necessary.
Commissioner Leonard Wortman alleged a previous court case about the road “was done in secret.” Others said neighbors who used to reach their property via Rocky Road were not notified of the previous court case and are suffering from the results. Wortman opened the discussion by saying he used the road as a kid and always assumed it was a public road. A 60 foot easement for the road appeared on a survey of property now shut off from public use by a locked gate when his family owned it, he said.
That easement continued to appear on a survey of the property when it was owned by Buster and Megan Bullock, both Wortman and Buster Bullock said. The Bullocks sold the property and the subsequent owners went to court to seek a quiet title.
Shannon Gardner and Patricia Baerga filed a lawsuit in 2008 against Felska Real Estate, and the case spent years winding its way through the court. During the court case, evidence about the history of the road, its status as a county road versus a public way, its geographic location in relation to the mapped and surveyed location and more was submitted. The plaintiffs argued work by Felska on the road damaged their property.
The defendant claimed, “To the extent there is any question whether the public or other persons not named as defendants have any legal rights in Rocky Road, a quiet title cannot be entered because of due process considerations.”
Eventually the case ended with an out of court settlement. The details of the settlement are not part of the court file. Since that settlement, a locked gate was erected, blocking usage of Rocky Road at the Gardner property. That gate, speakers said last week, makes life difficult for others living further up on the road, who must now take an alternate route.
Jenifer Wise, who said she has lived on the road for 26 years, said she has to go an extra 1.3 miles to reach her property. The gate confuses UPS drivers, propane deliverers, her friends and others trying to reach her property, she said. She also expressed concern about the ability of emergency responders to get to her if needed.
Buster Bullock said there was never any doubt that Rocky Road was a public access, saying it was on maps before 1900. When the property was sold to the Gardners, “It was not sold to them knowing that they could close it,” he told the commission.
Ed McCauley, a life long area rancher, said, “This [gate] is a new hindrance that’s been put onto our existing use of the road.” He said, “I am very confident that we will prevail if the county does not.”
Shannon Gardner told the commission the court case was not secret and they are within their rights to erect the fence. The court had copies of the map from the late 1800s and all the relevant deeds and documents and “the court still awarded us quiet title,” she said. Others in the neighborhood not affected by the gate spoke in support of those who live above the gate.
“It’s important to have quick access,” said Marv Goehring.
Commissioner Bob Mullen asked Gardner whether notice of the court case went to owners of property higher on the road. Gardner said there was notice by telephone, adding the road deviates from the survey.
Asked by Mullen why she felt they needed to shut off the road, Gardner said they did not want subdivision users “flying through there,” and their attorney said it was a private road. She also said that past commissions and the planning board did not know whether the road was public.
Gardner asked the commissioner whether they would not put the county in jeopardy for legal action if they took action when there has already been a court ruling.
“Everything puts the county in jeopardy of legal action,” said County Attorney Steve Haddon. The commission agreed to put the matter on their May 9 agenda at 2 p.m. Wortman announced he would not be voting on the matter due to a conflict of interest.
