akilina wrote: Now some homeowners have the added cost of having to upgrade a mile of road because the fire department won't service them in the future.
Did the fire department tell the homeowners that the road which was previously approved is not now approved? I don't understand how the road upgrade is a result of the fire.
Did the road degrade as a result of the fire, or did the fire department and the residents just now notice that it wasn't able to be traversed by firefightig equipment?
It is something the fire dept recently discussed with them after the fire. The jeep trail/road was put in years ago and homes were approved by the county to be built years ago. No problem until now.
Some homeowners from the Hi Meadow fire found that when they went to get a permit, they could no longer build where the existing home was before it burned because it is now in the wetlands. It was fine when it was first built, but to rebuild, not ok. So it meant great expenditures for some to move outside of the wetlands on their property and still try to hook up to the existing well, septic and leachfield. Some just couldn't meet the new criteria.
As for those in the Lower North Fork Fire, I am not aware of any who can rebuild w/o a loan and insurance much less pay the mile of upgrade required.
You would think that if it was good enough when the permits were approved years ago that it would be good enough now, but it isn't.
IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles
Gerou sponsoring legislation to compensate victims of Lower North Fork Fire
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 9:08 pm
State Rep. Cheri Gerou of Evergreen is sponsoring legislation that would create a commission to compensate victims of the Lower North Fork Fire.
Gerou's bill apparently would waive the state's liability limit in the case of the 4,100-acre blaze 6 miles southeast of Conifer, which killed three people and destroyed more than 20 homes. The fire started March 26 when an earlier prescribed burn by the Colorado State Forest Service on Denver Water Board land re-ignited.
“The Lower North Fork Fire was a terrible accident that no one wanted. However, we need to recognize that the fire, which was started by the state, has devastated the lives of so many families in Jefferson County," Gerou said. “These families and individuals deserve to be heard and be compensated for their losses.”
Gerou and co-sponsor Bob Gardner, both Republicans, plan to introduce the bill this week. The Lower North Fork Fire Commission would conduct hearings and pay claims to victims.
For a full story, check out the May 2 print edition of the Canyon Courier.
IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles
Raees wrote: The key there is proving willful and wanton.
You sound like a lawyer wanna be.
When I was lurking this site during the fire I really got tired of your daily pats on the back about how you had taken in a family from the fire. It's good you were able to do that for them. Mentioning it every day got to be a drag. I just tuned it out.
Becky is that you??? You keep following me around every place I post.
Gee I would like to take credit for it but it wasn't my family who took in the family. I only volunteered to help this affected homeowner cut down dead trees. What did you do?
Hey if it is too tough for you, don't read this thread.
Hahaha.....your just a fly buzzing around hon. I am more than happy to let you burn yourself here.
homeagain wrote: Let me amend/correct the previous statement I made.........SOME official,be it county or state,is responsible.......I have a call into
Jackie Kelley,information officer for Jeffco Sheriff. So far I have been told that 1st call is responsible for overseeing the system. I
then queried WHAT umbrella agency oversees 1st call and is THAT agency a direct government overseer? STILL waiting for phone call,
from what I have experienced,so far in this query, is a complete lack of knowledge,passing the buck.......so far. JMO.....911 authority
Board is APPARENTLY a county agency(?) and I was given THAT piece of information as part of this puzzle.......as an overseer? If
ANYONE here has knowledge of the above FEEL FREE TO FILL IN THE BLANKS......
Here's what I was able to find by searching the Jeffco website:
akilina wrote: You would think that if it was good enough when the permits were approved years ago that it would be good enough now, but it isn't.
Because building codes evolve over time I'm not surprised that changes were required regarding building in wetlands, the width of a road, etc. The previous permits were for that dwelling at that time, not for all time forward. I would think that the same rationale would apply to the road. ParkCo used to allow building on tiny lots (most of Harris Park). Now people have to combine tiny lots and have a different type of septic vault to be allowed to build. For a while subdivision lots could be 1 acre, then it was updated to minimum 5-acre lots. Code changes over time.
As far as the road no longer being approved, is it a county road? Or a private road? If it's county maintained I would think the county would be responsible for bringing it up to current code.
Should have noticed when I was up there helping another neighbor. I am going to guess a private road. It has a gate and I think it might have said private road, not sure.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
Raees wrote: The key there is proving willful and wanton.
You sound like a lawyer wanna be.
When I was lurking this site during the fire I really got tired of your daily pats on the back about how you had taken in a family from the fire. It's good you were able to do that for them. Mentioning it every day got to be a drag. I just tuned it out.
Becky is that you??? You keep following me around every place I post.
Gee I would like to take credit for it but it wasn't my family who took in the family. I only volunteered to help this affected homeowner cut down dead trees. What did you do?
Hey if it is too tough for you, don't read this thread.
Hahaha.....your just a fly buzzing around hon. I am more than happy to let you burn yourself here.
( I love this iPad )
And you purposely said burn huh in a fire thread.
Some of us have been letting others know that there is some good discussion on SC's 285bound.com website. Have been talking to families from the fire too. Told them that the Campfire is a nice place. Remind me to tell them that there are also some insensitive ID10Ts too.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
Ok....if you could explain to me what the rules for what now appears to be YOUR forum....
What words, phrases, opinions and comments are acceptable to you.....I will try to remain within the new TOS that you have created.
??????. Does this new TOS only apply to me or is it designed to encompass the entire membership?
