According to the United States Census Bureauís website, El Paso County had an estimated population of 713,856 as of July 1, 2018, second only to Denver Countyís population of 716,492.That number is up about 13,056 from July 1, 2017. Population growth brings an increased need for housing and job development. However, some current EPC residents are concerned their wants and needs have taken a backseat to new development.Terry Stokka, a resident of Black Forest and member of the Friends of the Black Forest Preservation Plan, said the Black Forest community has already seen on numerous occasions how new development trumps existing homes. Instead of determining whether a development fits well into the existing community, the EPC Board of County Commissioners tries to ìmake it work,î he said.ìThe people who live there (in an existing community) have a reasonable right to expect that what is being done around them will be handled within the zoning limitations,î Stokka said. ìIf I am in a development in 5-acre lots surrounded by other 5-acre lots, I have a reasonable expectation that my view will stay there and the county officials will follow the rules. A developer should never be allowed to put urban densities next to 5-acre lots because the zoning does not allow it.îMark Waller, county commissioner representing District 2, said the countyís land development code, which explains how development should be executed (including zoning regulations), is open to interpretation and is advisory in nature.ìIt is like going to court every day,î he said. ìYou know what the criminal code says but that (the code) is up to interpretation. People can vary and differ on their interpretation of the code. One person may think they (developers) have met the criteria and another person feels they have not.îWaller said there is no black and white when it comes to the LDC, especially when considering compatibility. The LDC states that each project should be compatible with the surrounding development, but does not define compatibility, he said.Stokka said in areas like Black Forest developers have amended or changed their plans to ones in direct conflict with the zoning regulations or the character of the surrounding properties, which violates the recommendations established in the Black Forest Preservation Plan.The BFPP, originally approved by the EPC planning commission in 1974 and revised in 1987, describes among other things how development in Black Forest should gradually move from low density development near the Forest to higher density development farther away ó in order to maintain the rural nature of the area.Stokka said the BOCC often ignores the BFPP, especially regarding the 5-acre-per-lot rule. One example is the Flying Horse North subdivision, measuring 1,410 acres and approved for 283 lots, he said.ìThat meets the 5 acres per lot average because some lots are 2.5 acres and others are 8 acres so the gross density averages out,î he said. ìBut that also includes areas that are not residential. The golf course is counted in the overall gross density, even though it will never be turned into housing lots.îThe BOCC approved the Cathedral Pines subdivisionís plans but later, the developer requested the addition of 12 more lots, violating the BFPPís 5-acre per lot rule; the BOCC approved that request, he said.Craig Dossey, executive director of the EPC planning and development department, said development plans can be amended and changed over time with changes in the real estate market, like the density of a subdivision or the location of certain uses within those properties, Dossey said.The LDC also sets out standards and requirements for how much open space a developer needs to leave for each project, which is usually 10 percent of the total area, depending on the propertyís zoning, he said. Of that space, the county requires no less than 20 percent to be used as open space, not easements or rights-of-way, Dossey said.The final plat is the hard and fast legal description of the lots and is legally binding for both the county and the developer, he said. At that point, the developer is required to provide some type of collateral, and a subdivision improvements agreement is created, Dossey said.ìThat agreement basically says this is what they are going to do and this is how much it is going to cost,î he said. ìIf they walk away, we can call on that collateral. The developer cannot get out of that contract unless the plat needs to change, which would require a change in the collateral and they would have to go to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.îBrett Ridgway, chief business officer for EPC Colorado School District 49, said the majority of their interactions with developers have been positive but recently a situation arose with Aspen View Homes. In that instance, Ridgway said the developer knew the land had been promised to the district for a school site per the areaís master plan, but they did not want to uphold their end of the commitment.ìThe commitment was not made by them but it was inherited by them, and we still need to fulfill our commitment (a school) to the community,î he said.Aspen View has had a change in leadership; Ridgway said the conversation is ongoing and has been much more objective than emotional. The developer has provided an alternative option that the district is considering, but he said D 49 has to determine if that option is worthy of trading for the commitment they believe Aspen View owes them.ìLand is just scarce,î Ridgway said.EPC is working to create a new master plan that will merge all the small area plans in the county, which is expected to be completed sometime this year, Stokka said. But there still remains one problem: that plan, as with the BFFPP, will be advisory in nature, with no authority to require developers to adhere to the recommendations therein, he said.Stokka said the bottom line is this: ìWhat is the point of having a new master plan with lots of goals and policies but no authority to enforce them?î
