During their final regular meeting of the month, the Garfield County Commissioners approved the proposed Fussner Minor Subdivision, located on Missouri Heights at the same site as the previously proposed, and rejected, Ascendigo Ranch.
The applicant plans to divide the 41.284-acre lot into two separate parcels, with lot one at 36.175 acres and lot two at 5.11 acres.
The “project description” within the application stated: “The applicant’s intent is to develop lot one of the minor subdivision for their own single-family home and to potentially build an ADU [accessory dwelling unit] or SDU [secondary dwelling unit] on the lot to help offset the high cost of living in the Roaring Fork Valley. The ADU or SDU is also intended to help provide a more affordable housing option for someone looking to reside here.”
The application continued, “Lot two of the minor subdivision is intended to be sold and developed with a single-family home and possibly an ADU or SDU.”
On Dec. 8, 2022, the application was approved, with conditions, by Garfield County’s Director of Development Sheryl Bower.
“On Dec. 16, 2022, the County received a request for a ‘call-up’ to the Board of County Commissioners from the Neiley Law Firm representing an adjacent property owner,” reads a memo to the commissioners, prompting the board’s review. (northpointewellness.org) Subsequently, the commissioners set a public hearing for Feb. 21. That hearing was continued for one week to allow the commissioners and the applicant time to review 70 pages worth of newly entered exhibits.
The applicant, Skyler Fussner of SkyFooze1 LLC, began the Feb. 27 hearing by telling the commissioners, as well as the general public, a little more about himself.
“The word ‘developer’ was thrown around quite a bit last time,” he began. “I just wanted to clarify that I am not a developer. I am a 27-year-old constructional engineer, and came to Colorado to live in the mountains … I recently started my own constructional engineering firm in the Valley … I’m really just trying to build a home here and have a family here, for a while.”
Matt Farrar, with Western Slope Consulting and representing SkyFooze1, wished to clarify that the adjacent Whitecloud Ridge Subdivision and the proposed Fussner Minor Subdivision are indeed separate entities.
With that said, it’s noted in the application that SkyFooze1 also owns the majority of lots in the Whitecloud Ridge Subdivision.
After the applicant finished a closing presentation, the commissioners each said their piece, touching on community concerns such as the maintenance of one of the shared access roads, Harmony Lane, and, perhaps most notably, water.
“I think there’s more than adequate water,” said Commissioner Tom Jankovsky. He then referenced the previous Ascendigo Ranch proposal, stating there was adequate water then, “which was [for] a much bigger operation.”
“I don’t think in approving this it would adversely affect the quality of life and so on, as sometimes is portrayed,” added Commissioner Mike Samson. “So, I’m fine with it.”
Chairman John Martin was the sole dissenting vote, and disagreed with Jankovsky — as well as the water engineering analysis — that there is enough water.
“I still feel that water is a huge issue up there because I know there have been several wells that are [above] and below this particular lot that have gone dry in the summertime,” Martin stated.
“I’m not in favor of dividing up these lots into smaller lots and then still having ADUs, etcetera, because what we’re doing is creating a very large demand on natural resources, transportation and, shall we say, neighborhood disputes coming down the pike.”
Martin then addressed the applicant, stating, “I do applaud you for buying lots and building a house, but I’d like you to use the entire lot and not subdivide it.”
Regardless, the board upheld the development director’s conditional approval of the application, 2-1.
Commissioners urge 10(j)
The commissioners recently sent a letter to the Colorado Public Wildlife Commission, in regard to the drafted Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, urging that the state not reintroduce wolves until the 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act is in place. The 10(j) rule allows for an “experimental” population to be designated as “threatened” within a certain area, which permits more flexible management, including lethal measures.
“We strongly support the 10(j) rule being in place prior to reintroductions,” the County’s letter reads. “If Colorado finds itself in the unfortunate position that lawsuits, injunctions or other legal strategies are used to stop implementation of the 10(j) rule prior to wolf reintroductions, Colorado must not introduce wolves until the rule has been implemented.”
The commissioners further urged that the state institute a hunting season as a management tool for wolves once their numbers reach 150-200.