At Highway 83 and Walker Road, a Test of the County’s Own Rules

On Thursday the El Paso County commissioners will decide a rezoning that had drawn 280 entries across the county’s two public-comment portals by Wednesday afternoon — 273 opposing the applications and seven supporting them — along with a 6-1 recommendation of denial from the county planning commission. The question is no longer simply whether apartments or attached homes belong at the corner. It is how the commissioners will apply the county’s adopted plans and approval criteria.

At 9 a.m. on July 23, in Centennial Hall on South Cascade Avenue, the Board of County Commissioners will take up two map amendments — P-26-001 and P-26-002, known in the county’s review system as P261 and P262 — that would rezone about 15 acres at the southeast corner of Highway 83 and Walker Road, beside Monument Academy’s east campus, from five-acre rural residential to multi-family. Together the districts would permit as many as roughly 324 dwelling units, potentially including apartments and attached homes, on a corner otherwise ringed by large-lot homes, a tree farm and horse property.

The public has not been quiet. At approximately 3 p.m. Wednesday, the county’s portal showed 132 entries on the RM-12 file — 128 opposed and four supporting — and 148 on the RM-30 file — 145 opposed and three supporting. That amounts to 280 entries across the two files, 273 of them opposed. The totals are not a count of unique residents: people may submit comments on both applications, and the portals contain some apparent duplicate submissions. On June 18 the planning commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial, finding the request failed two of the county’s own approval criteria: general conformance with the master plan, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Acting chair Christopher Whitney said the proposal “is not in general conformance with the El Paso County Master Plan and is not compatible with existing and permitted land uses in zoning districts in all directions.” The single dissent came from commissioner Thomas Bailey.

“This case is bigger than one development,” said Marti Zehr-Breedlove, a Walden resident who has followed the applications and agreed to be quoted. “It’s about whether residents, property owners, and applicants can rely on the County’s adopted plans. If the County’s own criteria don’t guide decisions, then people lose confidence in the planning process.”

That is the fault line for Thursday. The applicant of record is MA Infrastructure LLC, the entity of developer Matthew Dunston, who — as this newspaper has documented from the deed books — also owns the private Walden Corporation that would provide the development’s water and sewer. The rezoning is carried by Vertex Consulting Services, whose president, Craig Dossey, is the county’s former planning director. Our earlier reporting set out the utility’s troubles: regional reviewers warned that the Walden system’s replacement wastewater plant is roughly $1 million short of funding and could push member rates to “double to quadruple,” and flagged a sludge pile they said appeared to have been “covered up.”

What Thursday sharpens is the question of process. The county staff reports do not make a project-specific finding that sufficient water exists. “A finding of water sufficiency is not required with a Map Amendment,” they state; that determination would occur during subdivision review. The commissioners may therefore grant the density now and leave the water question for later. The applicant has instead supplied a will-serve letter from Walden Corporation. In its Letter of Intent, Vertex also cites the county Water Master Plan’s Region 2 totals, including a projected regional surplus of about 353 acre-feet a year at full build-out in 2060 — a regional, aggregated figure the plan attributes to several providers. And the master plan the applicant leans on carries its own twist: it was drafted under Dossey himself, when he led the county’s planning department — a credential Vertex advertises on its own website.

There is daylight, too, between the county staff analysis, the applicant’s argument and the planning commission’s conclusion. The staff reports contain no simple recommendation to approve or deny; by county practice, staff recommend neither, instead supplying draft conditions to apply should the board say yes. Staff note that the permitted densities would be “significantly higher than the surrounding densities” and that no comparable urban residential or commercial development currently exists in the area. The applicant’s Letter of Intent argues the rezoning is nonetheless compatible: the county Master Plan identifies the property as Suburban Residential and places it in a Priority Development Area, multifamily housing is listed as a supporting use in that placetype, and the highways, neighboring school and available central utilities make the corner an appropriate place for greater density. The planning commission read the same packet and concluded, 6-1, that the criteria were not met — its disagreement turning on the Plan’s accompanying requirement that supporting uses remain compatible with the area’s predominantly single-family character.

The plant, meanwhile, is only partway cleared. El Paso County approved and closed its local plan-review file for the replacement plant on July 8. But the state’s approvals are not finished: as of Wednesday, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s own design-review tracker listed the Walden “New MBR WWTP” with its site application still in quality-control review and its design review still under review — neither yet approved.

The pattern reaches past this corner. Also on Thursday’s consent calendar is Iron Ridge, a separate Atticus Land proposal farther east along Walker Road, also submitted through Vertex. It would rezone 85.99 acres from a five-acre to a 2.5-acre minimum-lot district and create 28 single-family lots. The planning commission recommended approval, 7-0.

And the commissioners arrive with a striking record. By this newspaper’s reconstructed tally of every final land-use vote from November 2021 through June 2026, the board approved 355 of 357 matters. Its two denials involved a regional utility power line and a homeowner’s request to divide five acres into two lots; it did not deny a developer subdivision, master-planned community, metropolitan district or builder’s rezoning during that period.

For Zehr-Breedlove, the stakes are narrower than growth. This, she said, “is not a fight about whether growth is coming. It’s a vote about whether the County’s own standards mean something.” The planning commission, she noted, “reviewed the evidence and recommended denial 6-1. Residents are asking the Board to apply those same standards and do the same.”

The applications are scheduled for a final county decision Thursday morning.

Sources & further reading

The Independent’s own coverage: “Drains, Lanes and Automobiles” · “At Highway 83 and Walker Road, a setback for density” · “Rezoning at the schoolhouse gate” · “Permission granted”: the county’s land-use approval record and vote tracker · “For Love of Place”.

County record: P-26-001 and P-26-002 files and public-comment portals; July 23 BoCC agenda; wastewater-plant file PPR2538.

Water / regulatory: PPACG Water Quality Management Committee minutes (Jan. 28, 2026); CDPHE facility-design review tracker.

Entities: Colorado Secretary of State business database (Walden Corporation; MA Infrastructure LLC; Vertex Consulting Services, LLC); Vertex Consulting Services.

Methodology

The public-comment figures are a timestamped tally of entries displayed in El Paso County’s portals for P261 and P262. As of approximately 3 p.m. July 22, 2026, the portals showed 280 entries across the two applications: 273 opposed and seven supporting. These are not necessarily unique commenters; individuals may submit to both files, and apparent duplicate entries exist. El Paso County planning staff, by practice rather than code, recommend neither approval nor denial, instead supplying draft conditions that apply only if the board approves. This newspaper’s land-use tally covers 357 matters that reached final votes from November 2021 through June 2026: 355 approvals and two denials. It excludes matters withdrawn, tabled or continued without a final vote.