Statement Regarding Fencing Within Easement on Parcel A

Statement Regarding Fencing Within Easement on Parcel A

We wanted to provide some clarification on the information being shared about a fence that is being constructed on a private easement within an area of the public open space located at the north end of the North Hogback. This area is commonly referred to as Parcel A and is owned by Jefferson County. Long before Jefferson County took ownership of Parcel A, a court order imposed a permanent, non-exclusive easement across Parcel A for a private landowner to access the landowner’s property. While KCRMD leases Parcel A from Jefferson County, and it is managed by the Master Association’s Open Space Rangers, KCRMD has no say as to what the landowner can do within the easement. That is between Jefferson County and the landowner. That said, KCRMD’s staff has confirmed that the fence will not prohibit or impede use of Parcel A by residents or the Rangers for management purposes as access points through the fence will be provided. If you have questions, please contact Pat Malloy at patm@kcranch.org or 303-979-1876.


  1. John Maxfield

    I’ve not seen the actual wording of the ingress/egress easement or of the actual terms of the litigation settlement agreement entered into roughly a decade ago, and my comments below are subject to what those documents actually say. But, unless such easement terms or litigation settlement terms specifically allow the easement holder to build a fence on either or both sides of the road to/from his property, it is ridiculous to think that he has the right as a matter of the common law with respect to ingress/egress easements to build such a fence. An ingress/egress easement affords the right to the affected landowner to access his/her property…PERIOD. An ingress/egress easement does not give the easement holder any additional rights other than the right to access his/her property. Imagine if the landowner here was not Jeffco, but rather a cattle rancher. Does anyone think for a second that the easement holder could build a fence along the ingress/egress road across the rancher’s cattle pasture? Moreover, the notion that this fence is necessary to enable the homeowner the right to access his/her property is simply and obviously not true. I’m not a real estate attorney, but common sense dictates that if JeffCo’s attorney is telling them something different, they should get a second opinion from an attorney who specializes in this area of law. For the defenders of the fence to argue that it does not impede the open space users ability to enjoy the open space and impede the free flow of wildlife is so obviously false to anyone who hikes and walks in that open space that it is like arguing that the sun comes up in the west.

    1. Jonathan Sawyer

      John, I suggest you stick with tax law and not venture into easements. It is settled law that the easement owner has a right to build a fence as long as it does not unduly affect the users of the land. All roads through Open Space are fenced off. This is to prevent the public from driving on and destroying the land. Nobody says by doing this it unduly affects the users and wildlife of all the open space. To argue that this case is so special that a fence creates a undue burden or restriction to other users is ridiculous. What Mr Thomas and his little mob want is for the County to renege on their considered judgement and issue a proclamation that this fence is a horrible infringement on users. Ain’t going to happen. The only thing the fence will restrict is to hinder Mr. Thomas’s ability to let his dog run loose over the open space as he was doing for years. For the record, I am the easement owner and I litigated successfully against Holland and Hart

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ken-Caryl Ranch