Most Recent Happenings

What’s at Stake

Adding up to 4,000 new homes isn’t just about growth — it changes how our community functions every day, and how safe we are when things go wrong. Three things matter most in any master-planned community:

Water. Roads. And the ability to get out safely in an emergency.

Amendment 15 directly affects all three.

🚰 Water

Sterling Ranch’s water system was designed based on a specific number of approved homes. Amendment 15 would significantly increase that number, placing additional long-term demand on water supplies and infrastructure.

Adding up to 4,000 more homes could:

• Increase strain on water and wastewater systems due to increased water demand

• Increase reliance on water supplies that must last for decades

Residents deserve clear, public answers about:

• What specific water sources would serve the additional homes

• How long are those supplies guaranteed

• What infrastructure upgrades would be required

• Who would pay for those upgrades

Although Dominion has issued a letter indicating support for the proposed amendment, letters of support are not the same as independent verification of long-term water sufficiency.

Residents are aware that questions about water availability and long-term supply are actively discussed at the state and regional level, and they are asking for greater clarity about how water resources will be secured decades into the future.

At this stage, residents have not seen a publicly available, independent analysis confirming that long-term water reserves are sufficient to support the additional homes proposed under Amendment 15. Given the scale of this amendment, residents are asking for a thorough, science-based review of water sources and infrastructure before approval is considered.

Waste Water Treatment Plant

Since its inception, Sterling Ranch has not operated a fully independent wastewater treatment system and has relied on the Roxborough Wastewater Treatment Plant.

There are now serious questions about whether that facility has the remaining capacity to support continued growth. If capacity is limited or fully allocated, additional approvals must pause until verified, permitted treatment capacity is in place.

A development planned at approximately 16,000 homes and commercial buildout requires reliable, long-term wastewater infrastructure. That capacity should be secured and operational before expansion continues.

This raises two reasonable questions:

• Why does a development of this scale not have confirmed, dedicated wastewater capacity in place?

• Why would additional approvals move forward without clear verification of that capacity?

This directly impacts residents.

If new infrastructure is required after approvals, the cost does not disappear. It is typically passed on through:

• Special districts

• Mill levies

• Increased property taxes

• Higher water and service fees

That means residents may ultimately bear the financial burden for infrastructure that should have been planned and funded upfront.

This is not about stopping development. It is about ensuring that critical infrastructure exists before growth continues, and that the long-term cost and risk are not shifted to the community.

🚒 Wildfire & Emergency Evacuation

Sterling Ranch is located in a wildfire-prone area, where safe evacuation depends on road capacity, timing, and contingency planning. When an evacuation is ordered, every minute matters.

Residents have asked whether comprehensive evacuation modeling has been completed to evaluate:

• Mass evacuations during wildfire events

• The impact of blocked or reduced roadways

• The combined effect of Sterling Ranch and the surrounding communities evacuating at the same time

Based on publicly available information, residents have not seen a formal, publicly released evacuation study that evaluates emergency scenarios beyond typical daily traffic conditions. Douglas County does not require developers to 1. Conduct emergency evacuation studies. 2. Implement an emergency evacuation plan for residents.

Residents understand that standard traffic analyses focus on everyday use. However, evacuation events are fundamentally different and require separate modeling that accounts for urgency, congestion, and limited route availability.

As a result, residents are asking:

• How is evacuation safety being evaluated for the additional homes proposed

• Whether existing routes can safely handle a large-scale evacuation

• How are surrounding communities be affected during a shared emergency

Residents have expressed concerns during public meetings about evacuation safety and the lack of emergency-specific analysis. Given the scale of Amendment 15 and the wildfire risk in this area, residents believe evacuation safety should be clearly studied and disclosed before approval is considered. The developers went as far as to say “Roxborough residents moved into a community without proper egress, and that is not our problem.” However, adding 16000 homes on the same evacuation path as existing residents is the developers’ and the county’s responsibility

🚗 Roads, Traffic & Emergency Access

More homes mean more vehicles — every day and especially during emergencies. Adding up to 4,000 more homes would generate tens of thousands of additional vehicle trips over time, increasing congestion and potentially slowing emergency response.

During an emergency, traffic isn’t just inconvenient — it can be life-threatening. Residents deserve to know:

• Whether road upgrades will be required before homes are built

• Where bottlenecks are likely to occur

• Whether emergency vehicles will be able to get through when they’re needed most

*Zebulon proposed sports complex could really become like Rocky Flats

Link tolearn more

Environmental Safety and Public Risk

There are serious concerns about land being represented as safe for public use, including proposed children’s sports fields.

After years of cleanup, millions in public funding, and a “clean bill of health” from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, new warning signs in 2026 now acknowledge the presence of hazardous materials in areas previously considered safe.

This raises direct questions:

• What new findings triggered these warnings?

• Were prior safety determinations incomplete?

• Has Douglas County independently verified these lands are safe for long-term human use, especially for children?

At the same time, Sterling Ranch and County officials continue to promote nearby land for active public use.

The issue is straightforward. Public health decisions must be based on verified, independent data, not assumptions or financial pressure.

Public Comment Removal

The public deserves clear answers on what is known, what has been tested, and whether any risks remain.Why Douglas County’s Ban on Public Comment Is Likely Unconstitutional

• First Amendment violation (free speech):
  Public meetings are a limited public forum. Once opened, the County may regulate time and order—but cannot silence citizens while allowing unlimited developer and staff presentations.

• Speaker-based discrimination:
  Developers are given unlimited time; citizens are denied comment or limited to two minutes “if time allows.” Favoring one class of speaker over another is unconstitutional.

• Viewpoint discrimination:
  Public comment was removed during controversial land-use approvals. Restricting speech when opposition is strongest strongly suggests suppression of dissent, which courts treat as unlawful.

• Due process violation (property rights):
  Land-use decisions affect property values, water access, taxes, and safety. Citizens are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.

• Equal protection concerns:
  The County created two classes—developers and citizens—with unequal rights to participate. Citizens bear the costs but are denied the voice.

• Conflict with Colorado Constitution:
  Colorado’s free speech and due process protections are stronger than federal law and emphasize transparency in land-use decisions.

• Violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law (intent):
  Public policy must not be formed in secret. Removing public comment undermines transparency and public confidence, even if technical compliance is claimed.

• High legal risk:
  Courts do not require proof of corruption—structural unfairness and suppression of public participation are enough to invalidate approvals.

Bottom Line

This rule silences citizens, amplifies developer influence, and shifts public costs without public consent—making it constitutionally vulnerable and subject to legal challenge.