Facing pushback from some in the community, the Douglas County commissioners on Monday delayed a vote to redevelop Pine Canyon Ranch — a 530-acre unincorporated plot of land splitting Castle Rock — for at least another month.

Developers and county officials on Monday agreed they need more time to address a number of issues to redevelop one of the county’s most historic ranches. Castle Rock officials and developers also cited interest to revisit discussions in a two decade-long debate to annex the site to the town.

The unincorporated Pine Canyon ranch splits the town of Castle Rock, near the Metzler Ranch and The Meadows neighborhoods, on both east and west sides of Interstate 25. The proposed redevelopment calls for 8.5 miles of open space trails, a new hotel, a maximum of 1,800 residential units, and, possibly down the line, a new elementary school.

On Sept. 10, area residents and Castle Rock officials who oppose the redevelopment said county approval would be detrimental to the town and that the town council has shut down the idea for the last two decades.

During last week’s public hearing, Commissioner Abe Laydon asked the crowd who among them oppose the proposed Pine Canyon development.

Nearly everyone raised their hands.

Following two hours of testimony on Monday morning, commissioners agreed to table the vote until Oct. 22 in order to also give developers time to propose new redevelopment and water plan conditions.

Six days later, developers approached the county with suggestions to prove the reliability and verifiability of their proposal, particularly on the issue of water use.

“Whereby we would be more than willing to provide auditable reports to the board, or whatever authority necessary, showing that we’re meeting the demand standards we’re proposing here, showing that they are achievable and reasonable,” Marcus Pachner, a consultant for the Walker family development group, told commissioners.

Pine Canyon’s proposed development, which requires the county to rezone the land from agricultural to residential, calls for 1,800 residential units with a mix of land for open space and parks and aims to establish a renewable water system. The company behind the development is JRW Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, represented by James Walker.

The annexation to Castle Rock proposal is “a 20-year pursuit to balance property rights,” Pachner said. “We are living the values that give benefit to the community.”

The Walker family, who has owned the ranch since 1885, has attempted to redevelop it since 2003, with the hopes of annexing it into Castle Rock. After three failed attempts, the Walkers pivoted and decided to pursue Douglas County’s approval.

“It seems that they, through 20 years of failed negotiations with the town, are now trying to circumvent it and go through the county which they can, because it’s unincorporated,” Greg Larson, a Castle Rock resident who has lived next to Pine Canyon for 20 years, said.

One neighboring resident, Jay Jacobson, said he supports the redevelopment as long as the Walkers can annex their property into Castle Rock.

“I feel that they cannot be the hole in the donut,” he said of the proposed development.

Paired with the redevelopment proposal is a water appeal to build a new, exclusively designed wastewater solution to renew water for irrigation and all other non-potable needs. That water plan — separately being voted on as the water appeal for the development — was a focus during Douglas County’s land use meeting public hearing last Tuesday night.

Notably, Castle Rock and Douglas County residents said they are worried about the water situation — surrounding the issues of quality, quantity and sustainability.

The proposed two-pipe well water system would supply .279 acre-foot of potable water for indoor residential usage, then be transferred to a wastewater reclamation facility for use as recycled water, according to Jehn Water Consultants Inc.

Walker family developers, and water officials insisted its proposal, in accordance with county water ordinance, “will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Douglas County.”

Jehn Water Consultants estimated that the developments potable water demands call for 458.89 acre-foot amounts per year and 343.43 acre-foot amounts per year for irrigation. This would leave 35% of groundwater available at all times, according to water officials.

“I believe that this is clearly unsustainable,” said Jerry Duncan, a local water treatment engineer who spoke at last Tuesday’s meeting. “Personally, I think large developments, such as this, should no longer rely solely on ground water supplies in the state.”

Water attorney James Eklund, who represents the interests of the proposed Pine Canyon development, told commissioners: “We really need this to move forward as an example for water resiliency and standards.”

He insisted the new water system in Pine Canyon would improve the scope of economics in the area.

Some said they worry about density.

Greg Larson, who said he lives “a yard away” from Pine Canyon ranch, said “what affects me the most isn’t the water issue … it is the amount of the homes they talk about, dwellings per unit, traffic. That’s the biggest issue.”

A separate mobile transportation plan on the east side of I-25 also drew concerns about increased traffic and congestion.

Castle Rock Town Manager David Corliss, who spoke during Monday’s hearing, said the municipality nearly reached a deal in 2020 to redevelop Pine Canyon and annex it into Castle Rock.

But, he said, both parties disagreed over water and traffic.

On Monday, Corliss said he supports the idea of working with the Walker family again to reach a deal.

“I would consider it one of the highlights of my career if we can effectively process the Pines Canyon development within the town of Castle Rock,” he said. “I want to show them that we are professional, that we know how to make it happen. And we know how to build a quality neighborhood.”

Laydon, who led the motion to table a decision until October, empathized with both the Walker family and Castle Rock officials.

“I share with Mr. Walker’s frustration,” he said. “I could not imagine spending 20 years with a multi-generational Colorado family trying to work through these dynamics and not receive the opportunity to do this. This should be occurring down the street in the town of Castle Rock. And so I continue to be just befuddled as to why we are in this position.”

Commissioner Lora Thomas also voted to delay the vote on the proposal. Commissioner George Teal, a former Castle Rock councilmember, recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In tabling the discussion, both Laydon and Thomas said the county has always supported property rights for private land owners, saying they will consider that in discussions moving forward.

“I am hearing a lot of willingness on both sides,” Laydon said. “Where I am today is that I want to see further studies on those commitments.”