Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Mitigation Klein topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney: Klein wetlands mitigation dispute continues as developer seeks alternative resolution
Summary
Routt County’s attorney updated commissioners on a dispute involving wetlands mitigation tied to the county’s earlier conservation-easement purchase; the county is defending its purchase and is preparing document responses after outside counsel for the developer sought records.
County Attorney Eric briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the Klein wetlands mitigation matter, which arose from mitigation tied to the county’s Justice Center project. Eric said the county previously purchased a conservation easement on 2.59 acres as part of required wetlands mitigation; the easement is held by a land trust.
Eric told the board the Bear River Apartments developer’s revised site plan initially encroached on the conserved area and that follow-up monitoring by the land trust and county review revealed an error in the easement’s legal description that left the conserved acreage about 2,000 square feet short of the intended 2.59 acres. The county’s preferred approach has been to amend the conservation easement and correct the legal description to restore the intended conserved acreage, Eric said.
He reported the developer prefers purchasing wetlands credits from a mitigation bank rather than amending the easement; that developer’s counsel has requested documents related to the initial easement purchase. Eric said the county will respond and that the county is "defending our purchase of that conservation easement." He warned the matter could require additional direction from the board if it becomes more litigious.
Commissioners discussed the county’s commitment to on-site mitigation and—based on comments recorded during the meeting—expressed support for defending the conserved acreage rather than accepting off-site wetland credits. County staff noted that the county’s work to construct and improve the wetlands previously exceeded minimum permit requirements and that consulted monitors were satisfied with the work.
Why it matters: the dispute involves recorded mitigation promised as part of a county project; the county’s position affects local wetland protection policy and sets a potential precedent for how the county enforces on-site mitigation versus off-site mitigation credits.
Next steps: county attorneys are preparing document responses to counsel for the developer; commissioners may need to consider further litigation or settlement direction depending on developments.
