Eagle County Land Use Regulations Reform

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED FOR MARCH 31

The public comments for the Eagle County Land Use Regulation (ECLUR) rewrite reveal several key areas of concern ranging from administrative transparency to specific geographic protections for the Missouri Heights and Roaring Fork Valley areas.

The following categorized breakdown summarizes the input provided from late 2025 through March 30, 2026.

1. Missouri Heights & Roaring Fork Valley Specific Protections

A significant volume of recent comments focuses on the perceived incompatibility of the general code with the rural character of Missouri Heights.

• Missouri Heights Overlay District: Karen Moculeski and Susan Sullivan (KeepMOHRural) repeatedly requested a special overlay district to ensure the Mid-Valley Community Plan remains the primary guiding document for their area, protecting it from "one-size-fits-all" county rules.

• Opposition to "Agritainment" and Commercialization:

  • Michelle Holland and Doug Graybeal argued that allowing high-intensity uses like bars, nightclubs, campgrounds, and amphitheaters in agricultural zones (specifically the proposed AR1 district) would destroy "quiet solitude" and create unmanageable nuisances.

  • Cheryl Niro and William Niro emphasized that these uses provide a "backdoor" for commercial developers to bypass residential protections.

• Infrastructure, Safety, and Water Limits:

  • Michelle Holland noted that Missouri Heights has a "sole-source" aquifer and fragile geology that cannot handle intensive development or increased septic runoff.

  • Diane Knight and Cathy Jacquemin highlighted that high-intensity uses create tenable risks for wildfire evacuation on narrow, steep roads like Upper Cattle Creek.

• Emma Area Protections: Cathy Markle requested that hospitality and large event uses be prohibited in the Emma area to protect riparian and elk habitats and maintain its quiet residential nature.

2. Conservation, Agriculture, and Open Space

These comments seek to ensure the new code respects historical agricultural operations and permanent conservation commitments.

• Deference to Conservation Easements: Jessica Foulis (Eagle Valley Land Trust) recommended that the code explicitly defer to easement holders on interpretations and state that easement restrictions prevail if they conflict with the land use code.

• Open Space Permanence: EVLT also urged that conservation subdivisions require perpetual conservation easements to ensure that "protected" open space does not become temporary.

• Recognition of Agricultural Rights:

  • Laura Bohannon (Eagle County Conservation District) requested the inclusion of the Right to Farm Act (CRS 35-3.5-101) and the Colorado Soil Conservation Act into the code.

  • Larry Calhoun (Calhoun Ranch) expressed concern that new zoning rules might terminate "Use By Right" for long-standing horse boarding operations, which are the livelihood of legacy ranching families.

• Request for Advisory Role: Laura Bohannon and Denyse Schrenker (ECCD) requested that the District be included in advisory meetings as a voting member to provide essential natural resource guidance.

3. Landscaping, Turf, and Water Efficiency

Comments in this category address the balance between aesthetic landscaping and the reality of water scarcity.

• Stricter Turf Limitations: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD) recommended prohibiting turf in front or side yards, limiting residential backyard turf to 500 square feet or 45% of the area, and requiring smart controllers for all new construction.

• Soil and Irrigation Standards: Denyse Schrenker (ECCD) proposed that soil organic matter be tested prior to turf installation, requiring amendments if levels are below 5%.

• Opposition to Over-Regulation: Mark S. Bergman countered several ERWSD suggestions, arguing that annual water requirement calculations are too informational for code and that the proposed turf restrictions are "overly restrictive" and potentially "costly".

4. Administrative Procedures and Governance

Commenters here focused on curbing "administrative discretion creep" and ensuring public transparency.

• Curbing Director Discretion: Karen Moculeski and Susan Sullivan (KMOHR) argued against giving the Director broad power to waive pre-application meetings or decide if a project has "material impacts." They proposed objective "call-up" triggers, such as five unique public objections automatically forcing a public hearing.

• Public Notice and Transparency:

  • KMOHR recommended expanding notification radiuses for rezonings and subdivisions to 1,000 feet and requiring QR codes on physical notice signs.

  • Cathy Markle questioned why no notice is required for minor subdivisions and argued that the Planning Commission should be allowed to make recommendations to applicants rather than just asking questions.

• Continuance Abuse: KMOHR noted that granting multiple continuances to applicants can "beat down the opposition" through increased professional fees, citing a specific case that cost neighbors $10,000.

5. Housing Affordability (Article 5.2)

Anonymous public input from early 2026 addressed the efficacy of proposed housing mitigation strategies.

• Inclusionary Percentage: Multiple commenters questioned if a 15% inclusionary requirement is sufficient to meet identified housing needs.

• Fee-in-Lieu Concerns: Concerns were raised that allowing fee-in-lieu payments as a routine alternative to physical construction would reduce the delivery of deed-restricted housing near transit and employment centers.

• Middle-Income Gaps: Input highlighted a lack of provisions for households earning above 140% AMI, despite documented needs in that spectrum.