The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners approved the land use consent calendar items 6a through 6c on Oct. 9, including a rezoning for Elkview Estates, by a 5-0 roll call vote during the board's Land Use meeting.

The rezoning drew public comment from neighbors and potential buyers, who expressed both support for new housing options and concerns about local access and drainage. The board approved the consent items after staff said further, more detailed review of access and drainage will occur at the plat stage.

Harold Haver, an El Paso County resident who said he has lived in the county since 1972, spoke in favor of the development, calling it “a very desirable community” and saying it is “consistent with the growth of the city.” Potential homebuyer Tyler Haber also said he supported item 6a because it would add housing options closer to town.

Neighbor Nona Womack Powell, whose husband and son own parcels adjacent to the proposed development, told the board the project will be “highly impacted” for nearby properties and described repeated flooding she said results from existing runoff. “It’s a 1 lane dirt road that accesses our property and the other properties in back of us,” Powell said, adding that water now funnels through a culvert under that lane and onto neighboring parcels and can impede access.

Lacey Dean, planner with El Paso County Planning and Community Development, said the next step if the rezoning proceeds would be a preliminary plat and later a final plat, at which point “they will address issues of access and drainage.”

Joe Sandstrom, an engineer with the Department of Public Works, said the developer is proposing a new access route for the subdivision that would not use the existing one‑lane dirt drive. “The developer is proposing a new access road … that is not Studebaker Road,” Sandstrom said, adding the county treats the existing lane as a private driveway built to a driveway standard rather than a public road.

Lori Segoe, senior assistant county attorney, told residents that alleged trespass or private easement disputes generally are private matters best handled between the parties or, if necessary, through private counsel. “If we're talking about current issues of alleged trespassing or using an easement or a drive that doesn't belong to you, that can either be… most likely best be handled as a private action between the two parties,” Segoe said. She also noted that subdivision criteria require applicants at final plat to demonstrate legal and physical access to lots.

After public comment and staff responses, a commissioner moved to approve items 6a–6c; a second was recorded and the board approved the consent calendar by a 5-0 vote. Commissioners also asked county planning staff to make sure the residents who spoke are kept apprised as the project proceeds to platting and engineering review.

Because the approval was taken on the consent calendar, planning staff and public works engineers said specific mitigation — for example, changes to grading, culverts, retention features or road construction — will be reviewed at the preliminary and final plat stages, when legal access and drainage plans must be submitted and verified.

The board did not adopt any site‑specific mitigation today; the recorded action was approval of the consent calendar items that move the project forward in the county review process.