Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of Coal Creek Estates preliminary plan citing loss of ag land and record concerns
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to recommend denial of a preliminary plan to resubmit Lots 6 and 7 of Coal Creek Valley Estates (divide 6 acres into four 1–1.5-acre lots), citing master-plan conformity, risk of precedent for further development, and concerns raised about parcel and assessor-record inconsistencies and infrastructure requirements.
The Montrose County Planning Commission on March 27 recommended denial of the Coal Creek Estates 2 preliminary plan after substantial public comment and internal review highlighted concerns about agricultural preservation, precedent, and inconsistencies in parcel records.
Staff described the application as a resubmission to redivide Lots 6 and 7 of Coal Creek Valley Estates Filing No. 1 into four building lots (roughly 1–1.5 acres each), noting potable water would be supplied by Tri‑County and wastewater handled by septic. The applicant, Tanner Grove, said much infrastructure from a 2007 subdivision remains in place and that the project would likely proceed in phases.
Several neighbors spoke in opposition, presenting aerial exhibits and arguing the 6-acre request is part of an 85-acre farm that a developer may seek to subdivide into many 1‑acre parcels, a pattern they said would be incongruent with surrounding agricultural uses and the master plan. One commenter asked the commission to consider the parcel’s location outside the city’s three-mile growth boundary and to honor the master plan’s protection of agricultural land.
Commissioners also raised procedural concerns after reviewing assessor/GIS records; one commissioner said parcel account numbers and ownership histories were confusing and that some historical approvals had expired, so any further development would need to meet today’s road, fire‑flow and infrastructure standards.
After deliberation, a motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plan passed 4–1; the recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their April 16 meeting.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the vote as a defense of the county master plan’s intent to protect agricultural land and avoid precedent-setting subdivisions in rural valleys. The vote also highlights potential record-keeping and infrastructure issues the county will need to resolve when older preliminary approvals resurface.
