Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Grand County to reject Echo Canyon preliminary‑plat extension amid jurisdiction and conflict concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents and community groups urged the commission to deny or question an extension for the Echo Canyon preliminary plat, saying the developer recorded a different plat, sold lots without full disclosure, and failed to engage local stakeholders; speakers also raised possible conflicts of interest for local officials and asked for recusals.
A series of public commenters at Grand County’s March 3 meeting urged commissioners to block or scrutinize an Echo Canyon preliminary‑plat extension, raising legal and ethical objections and calling for recusals by commissioners with ties to the project.
Dave Plotkin and several other speakers told the commission the developer recorded a different preliminary plat that does not match the county’s and that several lots have already been sold; Plotkin recommended written approvals from those lot buyers before the county acts. Everet O’Brien and other residents argued the developer had not engaged the county or stakeholders in good faith and said state legislation under consideration (House Bill 150) could change the municipality or preliminary‑municipality process, increasing legal uncertainty.
Bob Brian of Castle Valley and Staley Herring said Echo Canyon declared municipal status last summer and the newly formed Echo Canyon board has adopted its own land‑use code, which the speakers said would make the county’s land‑use authority inapplicable for that territory. Several commenters said the developer’s board members are also partners in the development company and could profit from approval, and urged recusal where a commissioner stands to benefit.
Zach Cooley, speaking for Ken Creek Development Watch, and other residents said developers have not made sustained, in‑person community engagement and that recorded sales and final plats raise doubts about the appropriateness of an extension.
Commissioners agreed to delay item five earlier in the meeting until the county attorney could attend; later in the agenda the commission voted 6–1 to enter closed session to discuss imminent litigation related to the King Creek Preservation final‑plat deadline, demonstrating the topic carries pending legal considerations.
The commission did not adopt a final action on Echo Canyon in open session on March 3; the public record shows community opposition, jurisdictional questions, requests for recusals and pending legal proceedings.
