 |
• Conservation
• Smart Growth
• Social
Justice
|
|
 Smart Growth
Sanders Ranch: A New Town Shot Down
In 2000, developer
George Hanlon proposed a new town on 280 acre of classic Colorado ranchland,
dominated by views of 12,953-foot Mount Sopris and almost exactly halfway between
the communities of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Sanders Ranch would
become home to 561 new residences, a community center, 300,000 square feet of
retail, and the first freeway-style overpass on Highway 82 as it heads toward
Aspen and Independence Pass.
The proposal already
had preliminary plan approval in 1998 on a 4 to 3 vote from the Garfield
County Planning & Zonging Commission. But as the day for final County
approval or denial approached, opposition grew like a range fire from neighborhood,
environmental and community groups. The Town Councils of Glenwood
and Carbondale weighed in against such sprawl as did scores of professionals,
business leaders, and other ranchers.
Contacted on short
notice by Roaring Crystal Alliance leaders, Public Counsel was asked to provide
critical legal analysis of the voluminous PUD proposal and to insure that a strong
record was made at the BOCC public hearing which would support denial
should the developer file suit. Public Counsel recruited and hired nationally
prominent land use attorney Gerald Dahl, then a partner at the Denver law firm
of Gorsuch Kirgis, who mobilized quickly since the assignment required 'round-the-clock
work.
At the BOCC public
hearing, Mr. Dahl's presentation was flawless, and following 14 hours of testimony,
the Board unanimously denied PUD approval to Sanders Ranch. The Board heard
testimony from 155 of the over 500 folk who attended the session. And
212 letters, emails and transcribed phone calls were entered as citizens' exhibits
opposing the project. In the end, the PUD was determined not to conform with
the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and judged to have disastrous
impacts on the surrounding rural area. Because the record supporting denial
was so strong, no suit against the County ever materialized.
|
|
|
