Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge commissioners to rehear Antlers Ridge rezoning, cite master plan and large-lot character

5856889 · September 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents asked the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 30 to reconsider a recent rezoning of the Antlers Ridge (Ayer Ranch) property from a 35 designation to RR‑2.5, saying the change would conflict with the county master plan's “minimal change/undeveloped” guidance and alter the area's large‑lot character.

Two residents who live near the Antlers Ridge (Ayer Ranch) property told the El Paso County commissioners on Sept. 30 that a recent rezoning should be reheard because it conflicts with the county land-use master plan and the Black Forest vision integrated into that plan.

Jason Kneiper and Ken Fink presented maps and a spreadsheet to the board during the public‑comment period and asked commissioners to “rethink” the rezoning. Kneiper quoted the master plan language describing the area as “minimal change undeveloped” and said the plan calls for limited redevelopment so as “not to alter the essential character.”

The residents focused on the lot-size relationship between the ranch property and immediately adjacent parcels. Kneiper and Fink said there are 28 parcels that share a common boundary with the ranch: 10 of those are 2.5 acres or smaller and 18 are larger. They told commissioners the adjacent acreage totals about 304.7 acres and that roughly 92.6% of that acreage is parcels larger than 2.5 acres.

Using those figures, the speakers argued, the proposed development would represent a marked increase in density and would not constitute the kind of transition the master plan describes. Fink said that if the project moves forward as proposed, the share of surrounding acreage in large lots would fall sharply, an outcome he said is inconsistent with the plan’s guidance for the area.

Both men requested that commissioners revisit the rezoning decision and said the maps and calculations they provided were not available to the board during earlier proceedings. They asked that the board consider the additional materials and the master‑plan language before finalizing the land‑use change.

No commissioners took formal action on the comment during the meeting; the public‑comment speakers asked only that the board reconsider the rezoning and did not propose a specific motion.