Commissioners deny amended plat that would have vacated lots in Paddock Estates after neighborhood opposition

Park County commissioners voted to deny an amended plat that would have vacated portions of lots in the Paddock Estates subdivision and combined them into a roughly 17.76‑acre parcel, citing concerns raised by neighbors about future density, road maintenance and water and septic impacts.

The hearing opened with planning staff explaining that applicant Gary Ventling submitted the amended‑plat application in January and a revised plan in February. Staff said the proposal would combine western portions of original lots 16 and 17 and parts of tracks C and D to form the larger parcel, which, if vacated from the recorded plat, would be removed from the subdivision covenants. Staff told the board that notices were sent to relevant agencies and that, since the staff report was prepared, staff had received more than a dozen public comments and a petition—most in opposition.

Neighbors at the public hearing said they learned of the proposal only recently and described long‑standing expectations that lots in Paddock Estates would remain low‑density. "If that's the case, that 17 acre parcel could, you know, you could pack in 25 30 houses in that uh that parcel," said Richard Jones, who identified himself as a resident and asked the board to allow additional public comment. Other neighbors cited the subdivision’s covenants that describe single‑dwelling residential lots, said they maintain local roads themselves, and warned that added density would strain septic systems and groundwater.

Rusty Blau, the surveyor representing the applicant, told the board he had reviewed the covenants and said vacating the lot does not make future subdivision easier because the owner would still be required to go through the county's subdivision review process. He added that the proposed change would, in his view, reduce density compared with the current configuration of four parcels.

During deliberations commissioners repeatedly contrasted property‑owner rights with the board’s responsibility to protect neighbor interests, citing road maintenance, infrastructure and potential downstream effects. After discussion, a motion to deny the partial vacation and amended plat was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote.

The denial leaves the subdivision status and existing covenants for the affected lots in place. The board did not adopt additional conditions or direct staff to prepare an alternative proposal at the meeting; commissioners suggested that affected neighbors may pursue further engagement or that the applicant may revise and resubmit following additional outreach.