ScienceChic, I appreciate your having moved prior posts and doing the same with this one too as I am an On vs Off sort of sorter, and never quite sure which is the right forum to choose on here.
That said, it is a priority objective on my personal plate, to boost your community website into appropriate position in the community since it is non-exclusive and that is my whole deal too, in Life as well as a poster.
If there is some way to restore my poster name to BuyerAgent, I think that would be less confusing too.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT! I do of course have a strong opinion about the further development of Delwood since my own ex husband painted the place blue as we see it today, and I hunted thistles on that acreage so that kids could play safely there without either running into 285 or a thorny plant with purple bloooms yet! that looked so pretty and was actually as sticky as it looked.
While in process of restoring the acreage around the little blue house, I also located where the other two cabins had once stood there at the same intersection and between the blue house and the fire station. This was a collection of gardened herbs and other plantings clearly established by the prior residents! and not native species but a lovely little patch of intentionally gardened areas instead....the History underneath my hands and knees was in my SOUL and heart, and so it is with gladness that we have a forum to write on freely -- and without cutting one another to ribbons in the process, or it is deeply hoped anyway.
Delwood is a commercially zoned property, and Park County long ago adopted a land use regulation scheme in which the areas closest to 285 will be most densely developed. That was the plan, and a good one. Anyone having purchased in the near-285-corridor on the LUR plat should have been informed by a buyer agent (assuming there was one) that it is LIKELY as opposed to unlikely, that their areas will be more densely zoned and developed in the future -- and the same is true in reverse, the further you get from the highway the less the chances are that someone will file a petition to rezone your place and be successful at that endeavor.
My actual OPINION is that the applied-for use is not nearly as intrusive as some others might be, and the fact the lot is so close to 285 and consists of 35A does in fact (to me) suggest the rezoning will be approved for this applicant or some other future applicant, since Parkco needs to EAT like everybody else and has nothing to SELL and that is the problem of any social unit including this particular County. The applied-for use is not particularly burdensome except in two respects:
1. It should not be approved at all imho without a County requirement to RESTORE the land to its pre-use condition, with a bond in place to secure that actually occurs.
2. The Rezoning should be limited to that use.
The property in question soars amid tall aspens that are so incredible, they deserve to be seen from zipline. The slope is nearly vertical and we can all figure out that that single factor largely controls the use of the lot, right? It is in the development of the STRUCTURES that will attend this location that the zoning application should receive strong County focus, NOT in attaching ziplines to trees. The secured lending owner of the equipment will remove that stuff when it forecloses....
which it likely will, since I agree with those who believe the community has rare residents with $25.00 to spend for a zipline tour with a girlfriend or son -- not to mention Bailey has no fine restaurants as the other Destination Resorts do (such as Durango and Boulder, for instance) so the Infrastructure does not exist and I do not expect the venture to succeed.
Unfortunately!
since Bailey DOES need environmentally friendly and SOCIALLY ACCOMMODATING recreation, as opposed to what we see on Pinecam which bears more resemblance to a community debate instead.
My two cents, thank you.