Wildlife questions, future development intentions cited in Garfield County’s denial of Aspen Glen request to remove eagle protections
Voting last week to deny a request by property owners to remove a protective bald eagle buffer zone at Aspen Glen near Carbondale was the first step for Garfield County Commissioners John Martin and Mike Samson.
The second step came Monday when they put their thoughts to paper, spelling out six specific reasons in a formal resolution denying the request.
After voting 2-0 on Oct. 11 (with Commissioner Tom Jankovsky recusing himself due to a stated conflict of interest), Commission Chairman Martin indicated the importance of making the decision legally defensible.
That came in the form of a three-page resolution denying the Aspen Glen Golf Company’s request to remove the decades-old bald eagle nest buffer zone along the Roaring Fork River, so that three parcels located within the 30-year-old development could be freed up for future new houses.
The commissioners gave the following reasons for doing so, as paraphrased from the resolution:
That the request was incomplete regarding wildlife corridor studies and impacts.
It did not adequately address issues of future building setbacks and floodplain protections following removal of the buffer zone.
It did not adequately demonstrate compliance with the 2030 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and 2020 updates.
The request “is not right for the wildlife corridor, or the assets of Aspen Glen.”
That the buffer zone has been in place since 1992 and applicants did not adequately demonstrate the need for the requested change.
That the applicants did not adequately demonstrate compliance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code related to wildlife habitat areas within Planned Unit Developments.
Read the full resolution here:
The commissioners denied the request after two full meetings on Sept. 21 and Oct. 11 in which representatives of the Aspen Glen Golf Company made their case, and several members of the public commented, mostly against the request.
Commissioners also conducted a site visit on Sept. 29 before resuming the public hearing.
Several of those who spoke at the hearing, including many Aspen Glen residents, said that a more extensive wildlife corridor impact study — not just related to the eagles that frequent the area, but all wildlife — should be conducted before the request is entertained again.
Glenwood Springs attorney David McConaughy, who represented a couple who was under contract to buy one of the affected parcels, said after the resolution was approved on Monday that no decisions have been made as to a new request or potential legal challenge.
“We will be meeting the county staff about some procedural questions,” McConaughy said.
The Aspen Glen Golf Company was separately represented by Chad Lee of Balcomb and Green attorneys in Glenwood Springs. Lee was not immediately available for comment.
Senior Reporter/Managing Editor John Stroud can be reached at 970-384-9160 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
The chief operating officer of RH recently said the retailer’s presence will invigorate downtown Aspen by day and wake it up at night, but they’ll need some help from the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Aspen and Snowmass Village make the Aspen Times’ work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.