Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baumgartner appeal to reduce Cottonwood Creek setback denied after county staff finding of viable building envelope
Summary
A Chaffee County Board of Adjustment hearing ended without overturning staff’s denial of a request to reduce a 300‑foot Cottonwood Creek resource setback to 100 feet. Staff and an ecological consultant disputed significant environmental harm; nearby neighbors opposed the reduction citing wildlife corridor concerns.
Kurt Baumgartner asked the Chaffee County Board of Adjustment on Feb. 3 to overturn a staff denial and allow him to build a family home 100 feet from Cottonwood Creek. He said he and his wife bought the parcel in July intending to move from Denver and that prior infrastructure and a previous mobile home justified allowing a reduced setback.
"This isn't a development project… We're asking you to consider our specific circumstances and the information we have provided from our experts," Baumgartner said, asking the board to apply alternative compliance rather than a strict 300‑foot rule.
County staff recommended denying the request, saying the land‑use code requires demonstrating that a strict 300‑foot setback "precludes a reasonable building envelope." Planner Nick presented maps showing high‑quality wildlife habitat and a distinct floodplain and said staff found a roughly half‑acre area outside the 300‑foot buffer that would constitute a reasonable buildable envelope.
Heather Houston of Birch Ecology, who conducted the applicant's ecological assessment, disputed that the reduced setback would cause the harms listed in the alternative‑compliance criteria. She told the board her field visit showed the proposed house site sits on a high terrace well above the riparian corridor and that the small wetlands lie in a narrow band adjacent to the creek. She said Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) advised there would likely be no significant wildlife impacts from siting a home about 100 feet from the creek.
Neighbors spoke against the request. Mark Harvey, whose property is adjacent to the proposed site, said the 300‑foot setback factored into his family's decision to buy and warned that reducing the buffer would push deer toward the road: "I respectfully oppose this request to reduce the cottonwood setback… I believe that's where they are traveling to." Dana Harvey made similar points about predictability of zoning and the impact on open space.
Commissioners and board members debated legal and policy principles, including whether code enforcement should be strict or accommodate parcel‑specific circumstances. One member proposed a compromise — a 200‑foot planar setback measured from property edges to align the new house with neighbors while preserving corridor function — but that motion failed to carry. A separate effort to overturn the staff denial did not gain the unanimous support required for the board of adjustment to reverse an administrative decision.
In the record following deliberations the board relied on staff findings that a reasonable building envelope exists outside the 300‑foot setback and that the administrative denial therefore stands. Staff and several commissioners said the hearing exposed map‑resolution problems in the wildlife overlay and that county policy discussions about refinements should follow.
The Board of Adjustment concluded without overturning the staff decision; commissioners directed staff to prepare a resolution to clarify the hearing record and the policy questions identified during deliberations.
