Bullock explains why rural lots in GV shouldn’t have landscaping rules

BY FREDA MIKLIN
GOVERNMENTAL REPORTER

In last week’s Villager, we wrote about a new law in Greenwood Village concerning residential landscaping requirements. It exempts residential properties larger than one acre, which includes the rural area of the city. As we stated previously, in a staff report  to the mayor and city council on October 24 from Tonya Haas Davidson, city attorney and Derek Holcomb, AICP, community development director, on the new law, it says, “What this means is that in the rural areas, one needn’t complete any landscaping if one doesn’t wish to.”

City Council Member Dave Bullock asked us to print his explanation of the exemption from the rules for larger residential lots. Here is Council Member Bullock’s statement in full with no edits:

“The reason that the landscaping ordinance passed by Council on November 7 was not appropriate for and exempted the rural district is because the rural area is a world apart from and night and day different from standard residential neighborhoods in the City.  The rural district is characterized by dirt/gravel roads, prairie grass and natural open areas.  Imposing a landscaping standard designed for small lot neighborhoods that generally have 3-4 homes per acre has absolutely no relationship or applicability to an area with homes on 2.5 to 5 acre lots, many of which have horses and other livestock.  While the ordinance did exempt lots down to R-1.5, which was lobbied for by Councilmember Kerber (another omission in the article), my argument was specifically to exempt the rural district.  Had this new ordinance applied to the rural district, there would have been a loud outcry and even revolt in opposition from the rural residents who do not want elected officials from other parts of the City imposing their suburban and even urban philosophies on them.  So my comments and opposition to Councilmember Dougherty’s efforts to extend his landscaping requirements to the entire city was simply representing the majority opinion of rural residents, many if not most of whom would have had to dramatically alter the landscaping of their homes to comply.  It would have been inappropriate for that very unique section of our Village and clearly a governmental overreach.  Fortunately, others on the Council felt the same since the ordinance passed unanimously which exempted the rural district.”   

Fmiklin.villager@gmail.com