Attorney for Miss Donahue questions easement compensation at Mariah Trail hearing

The Board of County Commissioners held a land use meeting on August 28, 2025, in El Paso County, Colorado, to discuss various issues related to property easements and development proposals. The meeting featured a significant exchange regarding the property of Ms. Arvaya Donahue, located at 19275 Mariah Trail, and the implications of a proposed easement vacation.

The meeting began with a question directed at Ms. Donahue's attorney regarding the address of her property and the compensation proposal related to the easement. The attorney clarified that the compensation was intended for the vacation of a portion of the easement necessary for planning purposes.

Following this, James Tilton, representing Wade Anthony Custom Homes, provided a rebuttal. He asserted that Ms. Donahue had previously opposed the extension of Mariah Trail, contradicting her current stance. Tilton emphasized that Mr. Kirk, the property owner, was dedicating land that would enhance the appeal of Ms. Donahue's property for future development, countering her claim of receiving no benefit from the proposed changes.

Tilton also addressed the ongoing negotiations regarding the easement, stating that while Ms. Donahue has access to her property, the existing easements do not meet the county's standards for developing multiple homes. He noted that discussions had been productive with other property owners, but negotiations with Ms. Donahue had not reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Darren Strapp, also representing Wade Anthony Custom Homes, elaborated on the attempts made to resolve the easement issues, including an offer to purchase a portion of land to facilitate development. He highlighted that the easement recorded during Ms. Donahue's divorce contained errors, complicating the situation further.

Commissioner Nelson raised concerns about the encumbrances on the property, seeking clarification on whether a lien or other issues were affecting the decision-making process. Staff confirmed that the easement itself was the primary encumbrance, which complicated the acceptance of the right-of-way by the county.

The meeting concluded with a reaffirmation of Mr. Kirk's sole ownership of the property in question, underscoring the complexities surrounding the easement and the ongoing negotiations between the involved parties. The commissioners will need to consider the implications of the easement vacation request in light of the discussions held during the meeting.