I am one of those Grand County residents who is dismayed that a change to the definition of “clustered development” in the land-use code was placed in a public hearing about ATVs. The idea, I assume, was that no one would notice it was there amongst all the very important dialogue about the noise created by those ubiquitous vehicles.

My concern is not solely for the Creekside development, but for the entire Spanish Valley rural residential community. This change to the land-use code is a substantial one for rural residential developments. A “cluster” of houses is NOT “rural.” The existing code does allow for some clustering based on certain criteria: the remaining acreage after calculation for the home lot sizes must be used for recreation, open space or agriculture, is to be owned in common and accessible to all property owners and must not be used as streets, parking or driveways.

This proposed change would pretty much allow clustering if the developer desired it, with no advantage to the property owners within the development or the community in general. The change to the definition would allow clustering “for more efficient use of land and public streets, utilities and government services.” I have no idea what “efficient use of land” might entail, but I’m sure the developers have plenty of them.

This is an important change to the code. It should be discussed within a forum related to residential land use, not within a hearing on ATVs.

Karen Robinson