|
6
<br />A B C D E
<br />Commenter Name Date Public Comment Excerpt / Summary Topic Area Applicant Response
<br />40
<br />41
<br />42
<br />43
<br />44
<br />45
<br />46
<br />47
<br />48
<br />49
<br />50
<br />51
<br />52
<br />Valerie Oleary Jan 23, 2026
<br />The current Agreement includes obligations related to infrastructure phasing, public
<br />amenities and access, environmental mitigation, and other performance commitments that
<br />were part of the original approvals. Given the age and maturity of the project, it is not clear from
<br />the public record which of these obligations have been completed, which may have expired by
<br />their own terms, and which, if any, remain outstanding.
<br />For the past three years the area has experienced reduced hydrological events, and the number
<br />of developments besides Suncadia are on the rise. I am very concerned about the availability of
<br />water going forward. The demographics of homeowners is changing with more people living
<br />here permanently rather than vacation homes. This assumption should be reviewed for its
<br />impact on water usage. Is Suncadia compliant with their water rights?
<br />My other area of concern is open space. I have concerns with how this is calculated. My
<br />understanding is that areas around the houses are counted as open space. The newer sections
<br />of Suncadia appear to have bigger building envelopes than the original homes. I think that
<br />calculation needs to be audited for compliance.
<br />Also, why is the request for 15 more years? When you add that to the existing 5 years, that is
<br />another 20 years. I think the extension should be for something less, maybe 10 more years.
<br />Granting an extension without first establishing a clear, written record of compliance risks
<br />allowing unresolved obligations to be the new standard. It becomes significantly harder to
<br />enforce earlier requirements, particularly those tied to timing or early phases of development
<br />after the extension has been granted.
<br />Since there are five years remaining I would like for the County to review and verify
<br />compliance with the existing Development Agreement before considering any extension.Compliance Verification
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the request for independent verification of compliance. Since approval of the original agreement,
<br />required obligations have been addressed through phased development approvals, inspections, and County acceptance of
<br />improvements. The proposed extension does not retroactively modify prior obligations or waive existing obligations but preserves
<br />the County’s ability to enforce applicable requirements.
<br />Please refer to the Submitted Suncadia response on Water Rights.
<br />Suncadia regularly audits adherence to open space requirements as new land is surveyed and platted. With each new plat application,
<br />Suncadia updates and submits to the County "Exhibit M" Open Space Calculation. This document tabulates open space acreage and
<br />confirms we are on track to maintain a 80% or higher open space calculation.
<br />Janet Sandona Jan 19, 2026
<br />Granting an extension without first establishing a clear, written record of compliance risks
<br />allowing unresolved obligations to be assumed complete or superseded.Compliance Verification
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the request for independent verification of compliance. Development Agreement implementation has
<br />occurred through County-reviewed permits and approvals. The proposed extension does not retroactively modify prior obligations.
<br />Carol Sandsmark Jan 19, 2026
<br />The current Development Agreement establishes clear requirements concerning infrastructure
<br />delivery, environmental mitigation, public amenities, and financial responsibilities.Infrastructure / Environmental
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that infrastructure, environmental mitigation, and public amenity obligations
<br />have been addressed through approved development actions.
<br />Mark Stone Jan 20, 2026
<br />Approving an extension without a documented compliance determination risks transferring
<br />unresolved obligations to homeowners or the County.Compliance / Risk Allocation
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the concern regarding transfer of obligations. The proposed extension does not transfer unresolved
<br />obligations and preserves enforcement authority.
<br />Rick Strellman Jan 20, 2026
<br />Before additional time or entitlements are granted, the County should verify that these
<br />commitments have been met.Compliance Verification
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the request for verification of compliance. Applicable obligations have been implemented through
<br />County oversight and approvals.
<br />Norm Thomas Jan 18, 2026
<br />Before considering an extension, I respectfully request that the County conduct a formal, written
<br />compliance review of the existing Development Agreement.Compliance Verification
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the request for a formal compliance review. Development Agreement obligations have been addressed
<br />through phased approvals and County actions.
<br />Devon Thomas Jan 19, 2026
<br />The proposed extension should be denied unless and until the developer demonstrates full
<br />compliance with the existing Development Agreement.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment opposing the extension. The proposed extension does not waive compliance obligations
<br />and maintains enforceability.
<br />Patricia Thurman
<br />I believe it is premature to extend the agreement when it appears the developer has not
<br />demonstrated full compliance with its existing obligations.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that accountability mechanisms remain in place under the Development
<br />Agreement.
<br />Sally Vellon Jan 18, 2026 I believe accountability under the existing agreement must come first.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that accountability mechanisms remain in place under the Development
<br />Agreement.
<br />Jackie Wilsey Jan 22, 2026
<br />I am not opposed to development, but I respectfully ask that the County review the existing
<br />Development Agreement for applicability and compliance before approving any extension.
<br />Given the age of the project, it is not clear from the public record which obligations have been
<br />completed, which may have expired, and which may remain outstanding.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that accountability mechanisms remain in place under the Development
<br />Agreement.
<br />Rob Wilson Jan 21, 2026
<br />I would request you not approve an extension at this time. My reasoning is I believe all long-
<br />term developments should be required to pass a comprehensive, and preferably independent,
<br />review as to whether or not they have complied with previous county and Suncadia covenants
<br />and requirements before being allowed to continue to proceed.Compliance / Accountability As noted in other responses, the Applicant is committed to continuing to fulfill all required commitments.
<br />Kathleen Woodward Jan 23, 2026
<br />Granting an extension without first establishing a clear, written record of compliance risks
<br />allowing unresolved obligations to be assumed complete or superseded.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that accountability mechanisms remain in place under the Development
<br />Agreement.
<br />Kathy Ziegler Jan 21, 2026
<br />I am not opposed to development; however, I believe accountability under the existing
<br />agreement must come first.Compliance / Accountability
<br />The Applicant acknowledges the comment and confirms that accountability mechanisms remain in place under the Development
<br />Agreement.
|