Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends Thornburg Estates resubdivision despite resident concerns about water and traffic
Summary
The commission voted 3–2 to recommend approval of the Thornburg Estates preliminary plan (MA25-005), a 13‑lot residential resubdivision. Residents raised concerns about irrigation, water rights, notification and increased traffic; staff said utilities met standards and that covenants will address water management.
The Montrose County Planning Commission voted 3–2 to recommend approval of the Thornburg Estates resubdivision preliminary plan (MA25-005), which proposes converting a roughly 14‑acre lot into 13 residential parcels and associated new roads.
Staff said utility construction drawings and public-works reviews met county standards and recommended approval based on the findings in paragraph 5 of the staff report. Developer representatives and the applicant described irrigation preservation plans, utility hookups and a homeowners-association approach to water and maintenance. "We have a very good control device as the water enters the property that we can then release water if we need to," a developer representative said when explaining irrigation controls and covenants.
Multiple nearby residents spoke at the meeting. Julie Burns and other neighbors explained irrigation-share arrangements and how maintenance responsibilities are handled. Tina Cordova objected to subdividing farmland so far from town, saying it undermines the rural character and raising concerns about Tri County water pressure. Wayne Pfeiffer and Bruce Norwood also spoke about notification and traffic; Norwood urged that access be limited to frontage roads where previously required.
Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on water flow tests, Tri County capacity for service to the new lots, and the location of fire hydrants. Staff said a flow test and coordination with Tri County had been completed and that prior approvals for utility measures had been secured for earlier lot phases. The applicant said the water and gas services had been planned to ensure capacity for fire protection and domestic service.
A motion to approve the preliminary plan based on staff findings in paragraph 5 passed on a 3–2 vote. The commission also asked staff to notify Public Works about cumulative traffic concerns on Government Springs Road stemming from multiple nearby proposals.
Next steps: the commission’s favorable recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final determination; any future construction will be subject to the subdivision’s covenants and required utility and road permits.
