Impact of new Elbert County Colorado, Master Plan
Ken Johanson
The
March 12 Planning commission meeting voted in FAVOR of recommending
the new master plan to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The
date for public hearing and vote by BOCC will have been set by time
of this writing; stay tuned to the Elbert County website, or search
the Internet for keyword "elbertcitizens" on Google Groups
where you can read updates, and subscribe to ask questions or
comment.
Contact
the the BOCC members and urge them to carefully review and respond to
your concerns, and let them know if you want the plan yo have more
work done on it! And attend this BOCC public hearing in Kiowa!
Below are points I believe make this plan undesirable for we taxpayers -- points I believe to be FACT based on the current language of the master plan, zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and also history of neighboring counties. These points are listed in no particular order, and where there seems to be overlap in some, it is an attempt to describe their impacts from the different perspectives that citizens often have on the same topics.
•The Master Plan document, together with Zoning Regulation documents, are tools which are provided by law to citizens of a county, to reflect their desires for types and locations of future housing and commercial development, and to predict the impact they will have on the county's budget and therefore citizen's and commercial taxes, and it is a tool which the hired planning staff will use to insure new developments match the citizens desires and expectations of how growth will be handled.
•The new Elbert County master plan and zoning regulations no longer contain the “smart growth” regulations which controlled where urban vs agricultural development can occur: removed are the land-use map, and adjacency rule.
•Agricultural land (40 acres and larger) anywhere in our county can now be subdivided to between 10 acres to less than 1 acre, in some cases regardless of proximity to existing towns and services.
•New developments have MORE regulation detailing how new home are developed inside the project, but LESS regarding compatibility to neighboring land uses, and of fiscal sustainability.
•Some new types of rural-developments (rural residential 10 acres) are allowed under the new plan, and are exempt from the stricter high-density regulations, and must pay a one time impact fee that does not cover the actual expense of county services.
•Elbert county is among the highest growth demand areas on Colorado due to its central location between Denver and Co. Springs, and "market factors" will insure, not diminish, the fastest possible outward growth of residential homes onto current agricultural land -- without smart growth regulation.
•In just 5 or 10 years, our county could see a doubling or quadrupling of the number of homes located in rural areas, and of debt-load or tax burden needed to provide roads, school, and emergency services to our more widespread residences.
•The areas inside a 3-mile radius (6 mile diameter) from towns/services (school, police, fire etc) and areas with paved roads, will be prime areas for high density development, since these dramatically reduce the developer's cost.
•High density new developments in rural areas may become commonplace in our county, and towns reduced, if developer's total costs are lower, due to lower rural land values, and, if the cost of creating new central water/sewer is less compared to connecting a town's existing system.
•A comparative study of how taxpayer/debt and county services burden will change under the new plan vs old was asked for but several times but one is not available.
•Citizens asked for affordable housing for teachers and senior citizens, yet the new master plan discourages high density development even near towns, penalizes for not having open space, has more design regulations, and new rural development will move commuters father from towns.
•Without written, measured regulations to limit the effects of scattered growth, our county planners will have less legal basis to reject development applications, and even if they did conclude an application is not desirable, could face more court challenges by developers or local residents.
•Even before the market crash, our county struggled with it's highest budget deficits, borrowed money, and now must choose whether to keep our schools open 5 days, reduce emergency response times, road repair, processing times at the courthouse, and lawsuits related to land-use conflicts.
•The fees assessed on residential developments contribute very little toward offsetting the cost for the county to support them, the majority of a county's primary income is generated by by attracting and taxing business & commercial development (stores etc), or, by increasing residents' tax rates.
•Business entities choose to locate in towns with high density and predictable growth, yet our new mater plan will scatter growth.
•Critics who removed smart growth language complained of the number of sub-divided lots in our rural county that cannot be sold; that adjacency rule did not work or actually encouraged leapfrog development, speculation (buying land to re-sell at a higher price) will be reduced, that homes grouped into concentrated urban areas were an eyesore, and also claim that REMOVING smart growth will fix these problems.
•Critics of smart growth state that personal property rights cannot allow limitations to placed on where in our county nor the number of lots they can subdivide their land for SALE to another person or corporation, even while we have regulations that place limits what they can do WHILE they live on their land, such as limiting permitted types of commercial use, requiring building codes and permits and inspection, limiting the visual or noise impact on neighbors, how they can use their water, burn fires, waste disposal, and others.
Ken Johanson, Elbert County Colorado resident.