Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greystone Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge action as Greystone proposal raises wildfire, water and traffic concerns
Summary
Residents and a newly formed Blue Sky Basin Community Association told Clear Creek County commissioners that a proposed conversion of Greystone Estate into a residential treatment facility would increase wildfire evacuation risk, strain wells and add traffic on unserviceable roads; county staff said jurisdiction for the parcel lies with Jefferson County and advised residents to comment there.
Several Clear Creek County residents used the public comment period to press county officials to engage with neighbors and Jefferson County about potential rezoning tied to a proposed Greystone Estate treatment facility. Norm Sherbard, co-founder of the newly organized Blue Sky Basin Community Association, said the group formed after learning of possible rezoning and warned the change from single-family to an overnight residential treatment center "increases the possibility of wildfire [and] increases the risk of evacuation."
Suzanne Vanal told commissioners that because parcels straddle the county boundary, Clear Creek residents would feel the impacts even if the parcel sits in Jefferson County. "Water doesn't respect water rights," she said, urging Clear Creek to adopt rules to limit healing centers to commercial areas and to set spacing limits so healing centers do not cluster near homes or schools. Suzanne Cook described roads near the Greystone access—Greystone, Stagecoach and Upper Bear—as already designated "unserviceable" by Evergreen Fire Rescue and said adding a year-round, high-occupancy facility would worsen evacuation and wildfire safety issues.
Other residents, including James D. and Mark Gilman, raised concerns about the project's effects on public services, questioned the business model and financing, and asked commissioners to scrutinize access and water supply impacts. Dave Figoule, president of the Blue Sky Basin Community Association, characterized the proposal as a commercial venture and urged the board to scrutinize its fit with county land-use rules.
County staff and commissioners emphasized jurisdictional limits. County staff clarified that the zoning application itself had not been submitted to Clear Creek County and that the parcel and proposed use fell within Jefferson County's review. Staff asked residents to direct formal comments to Jefferson County planning staff and the Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission but said Clear Creek's planner had communicated with Jefferson County staff and would monitor any referral requests.
The commissioners did not take action on the Greystone matter; no zoning application for Clear Creek County was before the board. The discussion closed with advice that residents attend Jefferson County's public hearings on the application and that Clear Creek would provide information to neighboring counties and residents as it becomes available.
