Sterling Ranch update: The Chatfield Community Association has filed an appeal of the project approval

sterlingranch.jpg

From the Denver Business Journal (Dennis Huspeni):

The Chatfield Community Association last month filed an appeal under Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedures, asking a district judge to review the commissioners’ July decision to approve the development plan…

The new challenge, filed by Denver attorney James Kreutz, alleges that Sterling Ranch application couldn’t be changed to the “pending status” after 18th Judicial District Judge Paul King ruled in the first case that Douglas County commissioners erred when they agreed to rezone the 3,400-acre site in 2011. Chatfield’s new challenge echoes King’s language in his order, stating the commissioners acted “arbitrarily, capriciously and with an abuse of discretion” when approving the application in July…

The 106 challenge also alleges commissioners “failed to act in an unbiased manner” by “engaging paid lobbyist to enact legislative changes intended to aid the Applicant.”

Commissioners, through County Attorney Lance Ingalls, denied they acted improperly and asked the court to dismiss the complaint “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” They asked the judge to not only rule in favor of Douglas County, but also order the association to pay the county’s attorneys fees and costs.

District Judge Richard Brewster Caschette has allowed Sterling Ranch to intervene in the case, according to a Sept. 11 order.

Harold Smethills, president and CEO of Sterling Ranch, said the appeal won’t stop the development. “They want a do-over,” Smethills said. “They’re hopeful that by suing the county, they might get lucky and get a do-over. … We’re just going ahead.”

More Sterling Ranch coverage here.

One Response to Sterling Ranch update: The Chatfield Community Association has filed an appeal of the project approval

  1. Steven Lechner says:

    I have been following this issue for some time now and I would like to offer an observation. As I understand it the CCA’s main issue is that the water for this development has not been secured, proven, reserved, acquired – whatever the technical word is for the CCA’s stance.

    My observation would be why isn’t this same logic used when anyone wants to have a child. Can anyone say that all the resources that this proposed child will use from birth to death have be secured in advance? How would any wanna be parent react if there were laws instituted that disallowed the making of children in the absence of the proof of current and future material support that the child would require?

    I think anyone who is a “member” of the CCA should seriously think about this and then decide is this lawsuit is still worth all the time an effort – let alone the logical cognitive dissonance that should result from truly reflecting on the analogy I have provided.

    It is in fact that simple of an analogy.

    Sincerely,

    Steven Lechner

    Larkspur, Colorado

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,016 other followers

%d bloggers like this: