Huster property belongs in Carbondale | PostIndependent.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Huster property belongs in Carbondale

Developer Brian Huster hopes to go shopping for more lenient zoning by trying to de-annex his 24-acre Crystal River Marketplace parcel from the town of Carbondale.

But Garfield County needs to say “no sale” to Huster’s gambit, and join Carbondale in opposing it to whatever degree is possible.

Huster’s move comes in reaction to the rejection of his proposed 252,000-square-foot shopping center by Carbondale voters in July. It appears aimed partly at trying to punish the town by denying it the sales tax dollars that will be generated by what is eventually approved for his property. It also looks to be geared toward placing the property under the review of a government that has been far more development-friendly than Carbondale.



But the de-annexation is entirely inappropriate. The land in question has been part of Carbondale since the 1970s, and is located immediately off Highway 133, the town’s commercial strip. Carbondale should have the ultimate say over what kind of development occurs there.

Most importantly, the town will bear the brunt of the traffic and other impacts of the major new retail operations that will eventually open on the parcel. It needs all the sales tax revenues it can get from the parcel to help offset those impacts. As for Garfield County, it will reap the same sales tax revenues regardless of whether the development is inside or outside Carbondale.



De-annexations are rare in Colorado. State law appears to recognize their undesirability, and to try to discourage “shopping around” for easier zoning. It says that after de-annexation occurs, a property owner must wait six years before developing the property in question.

There may be an exception to that rule when other development is occurring nearby, and Huster will be sure to explore his legal options. Meanwhile, Carbondale’s town attorney is moving to dismiss the de-annexation petition, claiming no state law exists to allow it in the case of home rule towns as opposed to statutory ones.

As for the county, it’s rushing to consider a resolution that would address zoning of parcels that would come into the county through de-annexation.

Another question that should be explored is whether the county has any power to stop the de-annexation, should it so desire.

It should so desire. At the very least, it should go on record as supporting keeping Huster’s property in the town where it belongs.Huster property

belongs in

Carbondale

Developer Brian Huster hopes to go shopping for more lenient zoning by trying to de-annex his 24-acre Crystal River Marketplace parcel from the town of Carbondale.

But Garfield County needs to say “no sale” to Huster’s gambit, and join Carbondale in opposing it to whatever degree is possible.

Huster’s move comes in reaction to the rejection of his proposed 252,000-square-foot shopping center by Carbondale voters in July. It appears aimed partly at trying to punish the town by denying it the sales tax dollars that will be generated by what is eventually approved for his property. It also looks to be geared toward placing the property under the review of a government that has been far more development-friendly than Carbondale.

But the de-annexation is entirely inappropriate. The land in question has been part of Carbondale since the 1970s, and is located immediately off Highway 133, the town’s commercial strip. Carbondale should have the ultimate say over what kind of development occurs there.

Most importantly, the town will bear the brunt of the traffic and other impacts of the major new retail operations that will eventually open on the parcel. It needs all the sales tax revenues it can get from the parcel to help offset those impacts. As for Garfield County, it will reap the same sales tax revenues regardless of whether the development is inside or outside Carbondale.

De-annexations are rare in Colorado. State law appears to recognize their undesirability, and to try to discourage “shopping around” for easier zoning. It says that after de-annexation occurs, a property owner must wait six years before developing the property in question.

There may be an exception to that rule when other development is occurring nearby, and Huster will be sure to explore his legal options. Meanwhile, Carbondale’s town attorney is moving to dismiss the de-annexation petition, claiming no state law exists to allow it in the case of home rule towns as opposed to statutory ones.

As for the county, it’s rushing to consider a resolution that would address zoning of parcels that would come into the county through de-annexation.

Another question that should be explored is whether the county has any power to stop the de-annexation, should it so desire.

It should so desire. At the very least, it should go on record as supporting keeping Huster’s property in the town where it belongs.Huster property belongs in Carbondale.

Developer Brian Huster hopes to go shopping for more lenient zoning by trying to de-annex his 24-acre Crystal River Marketplace parcel from the town of Carbondale.

But Garfield County needs to say “no sale” to Huster’s gambit, and join Carbondale in opposing it to whatever degree is possible.

Huster’s move comes in reaction to the rejection of his proposed 252,000-square-foot shopping center by Carbondale voters in July. It appears aimed partly at trying to punish the town by denying it the sales tax dollars that will be generated by what is eventually approved for his property. It also looks to be geared toward placing the property under the review of a government that has been far more development-friendly than Carbondale.

But the de-annexation is entirely inappropriate. The land in question has been part of Carbondale since the 1970s, and is located immediately off Highway 133, the town’s commercial strip. Carbondale should have the ultimate say over what kind of development occurs there.

Most importantly, the town will bear the brunt of the traffic and other impacts of the major new retail operations that will eventually open on the parcel. It needs all the sales tax revenues it can get from the parcel to help offset those impacts. As for Garfield County, it will reap the same sales tax revenues regardless of whether the development is inside or outside Carbondale.

De-annexations are rare in Colorado. State law appears to recognize their undesirability, and to try to discourage “shopping around” for easier zoning. It says that after de-annexation occurs, a property owner must wait six years before developing the property in question.

There may be an exception to that rule when other development is occurring nearby, and Huster will be sure to explore his legal options. Meanwhile, Carbondale’s town attorney is moving to dismiss the de-annexation petition, claiming no state law exists to allow it in the case of home rule towns as opposed to statutory ones.

As for the county, it’s rushing to consider a resolution that would address zoning of parcels that would come into the county through de-annexation.

Another question that should be explored is whether the county has any power to stop the de-annexation, should it so desire.

It should so desire. At the very least, it should go on record as supporting keeping Huster’s property in the town where it belongs.


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s 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.

For tax deductible donations, click here.
 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User