During a regular meeting held on Tuesday, Sept. 15, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) unanimously approved a motion to deny a special event liquor permit for an event to be held at the 84 Ranch this weekend, Oct. 2 and 3.
The 84 Ranch is located at 6252A U.S. 84.
During the general public comment period in the beginning of the meeting, a neighbor of 84 Ranch spoke in opposition to the special event taking place.
Commissioner Warren Brown explained that the only item on the agenda pertaining to 84 Ranch that day was the special event liquor permit, noting the other permit to hold the special event is a “separate” matter.
The neighbor asked the BoCC to uphold the findings of the county’s Planning Department and follow staff recommendations in regard to the special event permit.
She claimed that Brian Wattier, the owner of 84 Ranch, “failed to comply with the proper permitting procedures,” stating that does not create an urgency for the county to bypass rules and regulations.
The neighbor also claimed that Wattier was uncompliant with an event he hosted last year.
She suggested that the county approving both of Wattier’s requests would not be a “good idea,” asking the BoCC to uphold and enforce the county’s codes “to protect the rights of the property owners.”
Once the regular meeting was recessed and the liquor board was convened, Paralegal Tonya McCann presented the special event liquor permit for the special event at 84 Ranch.
She noted that all appropriate fees had been collected and the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office had been notified, “however, it appears the public notice of the event was not conspicuously posted at the proposed location” for the required 10-day period.
Commissioner John Ranson asked if it would be possible to go back and have the public notice sign posted for a different time.
McCann indicated that is possible, but the event is scheduled for Oct. 2 and 3 and the BoCC’s next liquor board meeting would be on Oct. 6.
McCann also noted that “it was [Wattier’s] own postings on Facebook” that shows the public notice sign for the special event liquor permit was not adequately posted.
Three more public comments were given on the matter of the special event liquor permit, all in opposition of the county approving the permit.
The neighbor who spoke at the beginning of the meeting offered more comments on the special event liquor permit, explaining that over the past three and half years, she and her husband have “tried to protect the integrity of agricultural land in that corridor of Highway 84.”
However, she mentioned that over that time things have progressed that are “not always following the rules and regulations.”
She also stated that the county has advertised in sales magazines that it will enforce codes and regulations that are currently in place.
“That is far gone,” she said.
She added, “If you do approve it, you’re basically telling the rest of us property owners that we’re irrelevant.”
She asked the BoCC to deeply consider following regulations that are already in place.
The next commenter stated he was the husband of the neighbor who previously spoke and expressed similar concerns, asking the BoCC to follow regulations “that are already in place here in Archuleta County.”
He also stated that there “seems to be some bending of rules” and that he “hope[s] that does not continue.”
Another commenter also spoke in opposition of the county approving the special event liquor permit, stating he is an “advocate for fairness” and asking the county for some sort of due process “that affords us a predictable means of being able to have consideration of whatever we bring before you.”
He also claimed that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has not issued an access permit for the 84 Ranch property.
Director of Development Eva Kruse clarified that the applicant, Wattier, has yet to receive an access permit from CDOT.
Wattier then addressed some of the comments stating that he “may not have anything perfect,” but that he was not trying to “take advantage” of any situation.
Wattier also acknowledged that he held a similar event last year, stating that it was not held in secret; county staff knew it was happening and a liquor permit was approved.
Wattier then acknowledged comments about bending the rules, saying, “I understand why it might look like that,” adding that he’s a rancher and not a bureaucrat.
Wattier stated that he’s always done what the county has asked him to do in regard to his ranch and events.
He mentioned that the permit application was not “100 percent complete,” but that he was asking for approval so that “we’re ready” when it is complete.
He also indicated that he would still hold the event even if the special event liquor permit is denied and just would not serve alcohol and noted that would not provide “as much revenue for the cause.”
Wattier then mentioned that CDOT had been working in front of his driveway when the public notice sign was put up.
“Maybe that sign wasn’t seen or maybe it was moved,” he said, claiming that the notice sign was posted for the required 10-day period.
“I’m trying to do the right things for our community and respect my neighbors as well,” Wattier said, adding that “84 Ranch is here to stay.”
Commissioner Veronica Medina mentioned that she had received “quite a few phone calls” relating to this matter.
Brown clarified again that the only matter on the agenda that day was the special event liquor permit.
Kruse explained that the special event permit is a separate permit that goes directly through Development Services, “and there is not a public hearing for that process.”
County Attorney Cathleen Giovaninni explained that Wattier had met all the requirements for the special event liquor permit, except for having the public notice sign posted for 10 days.
“The only thing he did not do, which is required by state law, is to have that sign up and posted,” she said, noting there were multiple “different viewpoints” and videos of the sign on the ground.
“So, we are really concerned,” she added.
Ranson asked if the BoCC could make comments after making a motion on the matter, and Brown indicated it could.
Medina then motioned to not approve the special event liquor permit, which Ranson seconded.
“I think some of this talk about not following the rules is a little unfair based on what the county’s gone through at the Planning Department over the last 12 months,” Ranson said, explaining that most constituents worked with three different directors during that time. “That said … there’s been a lot of chances on this.”
Ranson added, “You gotta do things right,” explaining that the county can only go back on things so many times in the name of economic development, but that the rules must be followed.
“It can’t keep coming back to us like this,” he said.
Brown commented that this type of permit should be “a very simple and easy approval,” and that he’s disappointed that is not the case.
Brown stated that he agreed with comments made about how the county needs to follow its rules and regulations.
He added that he felt the BoCC “has gone to some length to try to accommodate Mr. Wattier,” as it has with other businesses in the county in the past.
The BoCC then unanimously approved the motion to deny the special event liquor permit.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>