Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask county to remove wording that blocks wildlife‑setback variance requests
Summary
Property owners and an ecologist have urged Chaffee County to amend one phrase in the land‑use code — "precludes a reasonable building envelope" — arguing it prevents otherwise viable variance requests for wildlife setbacks and pushes building into less‑desirable areas.
Several Chaffee County property owners and consultants used the public‑comment period to press the Board of County Commissioners to change a single phrase in the county land‑use code that they say is preventing homeowners from applying for wildlife‑setback variances.
Kurt Baumgartner, who owns 2.3 acres along Cottonwood Creek, and other speakers told the board the code's section 3.6.0.2.02 contains a gating phrase — "precludes a reasonable building envelope" — that staff interprets to bar applicants from seeking alternative compliance if any technically allowable building location exists, even if that location is impractical or environmentally harmful. "That wording is what prevents applicants from even entering the variance process," Baumgartner said.
The petitioners described a narrow, surgical fix: remove the five‑word phrase so applicants may bring site‑specific proposals and professional ecological or hydrologic studies for review. They said removing the phrase would not create blanket variances; instead, it would restore a process in which the director could approve modest reductions based on science and larger reductions would proceed to public hearing and Planning Commission review. Baumgartner said the community planning and natural resources staff have acknowledged the phrase produces the blocking effect.
Why it matters: Speakers argued the current interpretation effectively forces applicants to build in less favorable locations and makes it harder for both landowners and the county to achieve science‑based outcomes. They said the proposed fix would allow ecologists and hydrologists to present site‑specific solutions and preserve environmental protections while restoring a workable variance process.
County staff responded that the board had already acknowledged concerns and that staff would "dig into that more" and return to the board after research. A county official said the change would not be made in that meeting but staff would examine the issue during the coming week and could return with recommended edits the following meeting.
(Ending) Property owners asked the board to direct staff to remove the gating phrase from section 3.6.0.2.02 so that applicants can pursue alternative compliance using site‑specific, science‑based reviews. The board committed to further review but took no immediate code change at the meeting.
