Twin Acres Fundraising

Dozens of us have worked diligently to prevent the commercialization of Missouri Heights, as proposed in the Special Use Application for the Twin Acres Riding and Boarding Stables. Our challenges have led to the Applicant tabling the hearing five times and continuing their hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. The final hearing was held July 23rd at 4 PM in El Jebel where the application was denied.

During each delay we uncovered more and more concerns with the Application, which we in turn raised with the County and referral agencies. Many of these concerns were laboriously discovered through informal communications and what have now become weekly submittals to the County using the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) to request that the County provide us all applicable new project communications. 

Simultaneously, several neighbors individually retained water and land-use legal and engineering counsel, and we have continued to raise funds to hire additional counsel to represent the entire community.  Given that the Application continues to drag on and it is so multifaceted – land use, water use, hydrology, environmental impacts, traffic, equestrian operations, and community compatibility, we have exhausted these funds and need your support to continue the challenge.

BUT.... your donations allowed us to have impact! In the June 18 hearing we had over 29 people speaking (including 4 attorneys). We had so much impact that the hearing went nearly 6 hours! Here are a few examples. There are more.

Water

We have:

• monitored water court progress, 

• obtained the final water decree, and 

• provided that to the County before the Applicant. 

In delivering the water decree, our attorneys questioned the adequacy of those newly acquired water rights. 

AVLT

After we tenaciously informed AVLT of negative impacts on the 80 acres, AVLT updated their referral comments and warned that an emergency egress road across the 80 acre agricultural parcel (required by the fire department) cannot be built, and voiced concerns about the intensity of use negatively impacting wildlife. 

Traffic

Our traffic engineer has introduced new traffic numbers that the County still needs to review. 

Fire Protection

We have had many conversations with the fire department who is now pressing the Applicant on water storage and other fire issues. Literally dozens of letters were sent to the County showing how the proposed development is incompatible with the surrounding community. We could go on.

Attorneys

All of this work was done under the advice of our land use attorneys! We used the entirety of our donated funds towards administrative costs and attorney bills (about $22K). The remainder was paid with limited KMOHR administrative funds (intended for buying stamps, printing costs, etc.). 

Among many other services, the attorneys: 

• Wrote four detailed letters of opposition and personally presented them at the June 18 hearing (one to be referenced at the site visit)

• Provided review, counseling, met with us multiple times in preparing for March 26th and June 18th hearings.

• Reviewed and coordinated our participation at the March 26 Tabling Hearing

• Read and became deeply familiar with the Application and Staff Report

• Multiple contacts with water court and obtained most recent documentation (three times)

• Multiple contacts with Applicant’s attorneys and County Attorneys

• Attended BOCC tabling sessions (via ECTV) and June 18th hearing.

We had an arsenal of speakers assembled for the Public Comment session of the March 26th hearing which was subsequently tabled.

• 26 prepared speakers, plus 20 pre-arranged time ceders ready to participate

• Experts to speak, including two water attorneys, a land-use attorney, environmental engineers, traffic engineer, and more

• over 800 pages of public comments

• over 300 local signatures on the petition

At the June 18th hearing, which lasted over 5 hours, our attorneys both opened the Public Comment Session, speaking 6 minutes each on Water and Compatibility.  

31 speakers lined up to testify in opposition. 

There were also 4 people speaking in support, mostly about the character of the applicant and “the need” for riding stables in the valley.

• At the hearing, which lasted over 5 hours, 31 speakers lined up to testify in opposition. There were also 4 people speaking in support, mostly about the character of the applicant and “the need” for riding stables in the valley.

• Public comment opened with Dan Gageby (neighbor) and four attorneys setting the stage. 

• 27 additional opponents gave compelling testimony, including equestrians, environmental experts, engineers, scientists, land planning experts, and longtime residents. Over 20 community members ceded their time to allow our speakers more than the 3 minutes allocated by the county.  

• The presentation was compelling and demonstrated why the proposal does not meet required County standards on multiple fronts.  At the end of our public comment, we distributed a binder to the BOCC, county attorney, planner, and applicant with written versions of our speakers' comments for review.

• Positive Outlook: Our attorneys praised our detailed, clear, and well-researched comments, and said that we provided a strong basis to deny the application.

• The hearing was ended after all Public Comment was received, with the Applicant’s closing statement scheduled for July 23 WHERE THIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED!. 

ALL THIS WORK LED US TO SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!