During a regular meeting on Aug. 19, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC), acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied a general variance request for paving requirements for a project known as Tiny Pagosa.
In the same meeting, the BoCC also unanimously voted to deny a rezone request for the same project during a land use hearing.
The general variance request was the first matter discussed, with now former planning manager Owen O’Dell explaining that the Tiny Pagosa project, being represented by Travis and Sarah Troxtell, was conditionally approved for a use-by-right permit for a tiny home village (THV) by the Planning Department on April 11.
O’Dell explained that the Board of Adjustment may approve a variance request if the strict application of the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations (LUR) would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and undue hardship.”
He noted that variances are essentially a grant of authority for a property owner to be able to use their property in a way that varies from the LUR.
The Troxtells requested a variance from the two conditions set in place by the Planning Department for their THV to operate at 5503 U.S. 84.
Those two conditions were that a grading and drainage report that includes paving for all driveways and parking areas needed to be resubmitted, and that after construction a signed and sealed letter would need to be submitted to the engineering department from the design engineer that all developments, including paving, were built in accordance to the county’s standards.
O’Dell went on to indicate that the county’s engineering technician recommended against the approval of the variance request, noting, “It is the stance of the engineering technician that the applicant is requesting the variance on the sole basis of personal cost for the development of the project.”
The Troxtells summarized their variance request with six bullet points that state their project would directly address the affordable housing crisis in the county, aligns with previous expectations set for paving requirements, was approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), claiming it may not fall under county jurisdiction being off of a state highway, would keep the development financially feasible and accessible to those in need, and maintains the character and intent of the county’s LUR without compromising public safety or infrastructure.
The Planning Department addressed each bullet point put forth by the Troxtells, beginning with how it would directly address the affordable housing crisis.
In O’Dell’s staff report presented to the board, he explains that the claim “does hold a degree of validity,” but that the applicant is not providing actual dwelling units but spaces for people to bring their tiny homes.
“As noted in the Rezone Staff Report, the Planning Department does see this as a viable option for affordability in housing. However, this statement from the applicant can be misleading as they are not providing units nor are they willing to opt-into the Affordable Workforce Housing program currently available,” O’Dell’s report states.
The report also explains that the spaces would be provided with all necessary infrastructure at a rate of $650 per month, “but that rate is not controlled or dictated by Archuleta County.”
The report references the rezone staff report again, noting that a tiny home manufacturer out of Durango can cost anywhere from $37,000 to $160,000 with a loan as low as 6.47 percent.
The report goes on to state the Planning Department found no evidence to support the claim of this variance request aligning with previous paving requirements, explaining this project would be a 40-unit development and, according to the LUR, all multifamily areas shall be paved.
The report then notes that the Troxtells received an access permit from CDOT with a condition that a 50-foot entrance be paved, but after the right of way is crossed then jurisdiction falls back to Archuleta County.
The Troxtells also indicated that the paving requirements would increase the project cost by 30 to 40 percent.
In response to the bullet point that the variance would ensure that the project remains financially feasible, O’Dell’s report references Section 2 of the LUR that states, “Under no circumstance shall a variance be granted on the sole basis of personal convenience, profit or special privilege.”
The report also notes that this is a “business venture for the applicants, while staff does find they are targeting a need, they are not facilitating, in the truest fashion, affordable housing units.”
O’Dell explained that with 40 units planned for the development, average daily traffic would result in almost 280 vehicle trips to and from the property daily, citing this as a concern for the public health in the area with particulate matter being generated from an unpaved road.
In O’Dell’s conclusion, he explains that past variance requests have only been approved for nonprofit organizations or farming operations off of dirt roads.
“Staff could possibly recommend the approval if the applicant was to enlist a percentage of their units as Affordable Workforce Housing, but without that delineation, Staff would not recommend approval,” the report states.
The applicant was then given a chance to comment, with Travis Troxtell explaining that the variance request “comes down to cost.”
He explained the goal is to keep the cost down, indicating they are fine operating on “thin margins” in order to keep the development affordable for those in the community.
He also noted that paving could cost up to $1 million per mile and that they would have to pave approximately half a mile worth of driveways.
“So, it’s a significant cost for us to be required to pave,” he said, noting that if required to pave, the cost would likely be passed down to the tenants.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked if the Troxtells intended to do any sort of income verification or other process to ensure the units are serving those in need of affordable housing.
Travis Troxtell explained that they have been “open to that possibility,” but they are confident they can facilitate that on their own, “if we don’t have to pave.”
Sarah Troxtell commented, “No, we’re not going to do checks,” but indicated that they have been in contact with folks potentially interested in the development and that they fall close to the county’s affordable housing requirements in terms of income.
Commissioner John Ranson asked what it would take for the Troxtells to opt into the county’s affordable housing program.
O’Dell commented that the biggest thing would be having to sign a deed restriction with the county that sets a rental rate for at least 20 years that is based on area median income tables released by the state.
O’Dell mentioned there are “a slew of standards” that would need to be met, but that a lot of it is the “nitty gritty details of deed restriction,” noting it can be “such a large commitment to restrict your property for 20 years.”
O’Dell also clarified that the variance request did not go to the planning commission, whereas the process for a rezone request involves going to the planning commission first.
Ranson commented that it bothered him that the variance request narrative states the applicant received written guidance that a variance would be an option and that they would be “requested, not required” to pave the development.
O’Dell explained those comments did not come from him, but that something along those lines was stated.
Chance for public comment on the matter was then given, with a total of 11 commenters speaking.
Eight commenters were opposed to granting the variance, two in favor and one who was neither in favor or opposed and just wanted answers to questions relating to water, sewage and vehicle traffic on the property.
Those who commented in favor of the variance request and the Troxtell project as a whole stated that affordable housing solutions can be tricky and that a lot of well-intended projects are “actually not very affordable.”
One commenter expressed that he liked the Troxtell project because “it’s just affordable” without having multiple restrictions put on the property or dictating who can qualify for a space for their unit.
The other commenter in favor of the variance request and the project as a whole stated he is a resident of the Loma Linda neighborhood, adding that he has seen affordable housing issues in other communities and that when there are no reasonable options, “you end up losing quality people.”
He commented that the project doesn’t just benefit the Troxtells, but the whole community.
Those opposed to the variance acknowledged the intention of the Troxtells, with most of them commenting that they appreciated the passion and creativity in trying to address affordable housing concerns in the community.
Reasons for opposing the variance request stated from public commenters included concerns of public health with the amount of particulate matter potentially being generated, along with concerns that there is not enough water in the area to serve the project.
One commenter mentioned that the constant allowing of exceptions harms the overall good of the county.
One commenter indicating he is a neighbor to the Troxtell property, described the project as an urban development being pushed into an agricultural area.
“This is not an affordable housing discussion,” audience member Dan English said, claiming that people who would be coming to live in their tiny homes on this property don’t have the equipment, “nor do they have the know-how” to provide the level of self-support needed to live in an agricultural community.
English also expressed frustration with the county’s notification requirements in regard to land use hearings.
Another commenter identifying himself as a neighbor to the Troxtells, Jared Wirth, expressed concerns over water in the area, claiming that his cattle were short on water this year.
“This is not land ownership,” Wirth added, explaining that he understands the need for affordable housing, but that residents would not own the land and would pay a monthly rate to stay there.
Another commenter, stating they are a part-time resident with property near the Troxtell parcel, expressed concerns of the variance and rezone requests claiming the development would impact her.
The same commenter later spoke in favor of a different request put before the planning commission on Aug. 28 for the approval of a wilderness lodging project on the property adjacent to the south of the Troxtell parcel.
For more information on that matter, see related article in this issue of The SUN.
Once public comment was finished, Brown offered comments before making a motion to deny the variance request.
“I do not believe this is an affordable housing project, as stated by some, and Mr. Troxtell himself stated that this is to lower the cost of the project,” Brown said, expressing he understands wanting to keep the project cost down and can certainly appreciate a business venture by the Troxtells.
However, Brown referenced the LUR, which states a variance shall not be approved on the sole basis of personal convenience, profit or special privilege as to why he would not support approving the request.
Ranson then seconded the motion to deny the variance request, which was unanimously approved.
Land use hearing
Immediately following the variance request, the BoCC opened the land use hearing for the Troxtell rezone request.
The BoCC initially heard the rezone request in April, after it was recommended for approval by the planning commission by a split vote.
O’Dell explained that the rezone request comes with a THV permit that was administratively reviewed and conditionally approved.
“It is important to note that this Rezone request is a separate proposal to the Tiny Home Village request, which requires a Use-By-Right review. However, one approval would not be possible without the approval of the other. The applicants wish to Rezone the property to Mobile Home Park (MHP). The parcel is zoned Agricultural Ranching (AR),” O’Dell’s report states.
He indicated that the county’s future land use map currently designates the parcel as low-density residential.
“While it is important to understand the scope of the Future Land Use and Zoning, neither are classified as review criteria for a Rezone Request,” O’Dell’s report adds.
O’Dell explained that the Troxtells intend to construct a THV and that, according to the county’s LUR, THVs are only allowed in MHP zoning districts.
“The Troxtell’s have identified a gap in housing for our community, and they believe the creation of a Tiny Home Village would enlist a more versatile housing option for Archuleta County residences,” O’Dell’s report notes.
He went on to explain that approval criteria for a rezone is written so that the applicant meets one of the 10 criteria listed.
O’Dell also noted that the final decision on whether or not to approve the rezone request is at the discretion of the BoCC and that all applicants are advised there is no right to a change of zone.
O’Dell then reviewed the county’s rezone review criteria, indicating the Troxtells have met seven out of the 10, “exemplifying their compliance” with the county’s LURs.
Ranson brought up the question of spot zoning, asking O’Dell to elaborate more on that topic.
O’Dell explained that MHP zoning is going to be spot zoning in nature, unlike having a cluster of neighborhood properties that are zoned alike.
He commented that MHP-zoned parcels are “traditionally a single parcel” with its own subdivision within that parcel, noting this is typical to see in other counties as well.
The Troxtells were able to provide comments in regard to the rezone request, with Sarah Troxtell explaining that the family moved from Dallas, Texas, in search of a lifestyle that did not revolve around accumulating wealth and wanted to “live for love,” including neighbors, friends and a community as a whole.
She explained they found this property and wanted to help with the affordable housing situation in Archuleta County.
“Maybe it doesn’t align with your definition of affordable housing,” she said, adding that paying $1,000 to $1,500 total for a tiny home and space at their property “is way more affordable than almost anything else that you can get” rented here.
She clarified that electricity, water and sewer would be included in the rate to rent a space for residents to place their tiny homes.
“That is hard to beat,” she added.
Sarah Troxtell also explained that her family is building their permanent home on the property as well and would be heavily involved in making sure the development looks good and that the land is taken care of.
“We care deeply about the land,” she said, explaining that the previous owners left remnants of an abandoned trailer park on the property that they paid to have cleaned up.
She also acknowledged the importance of agricultural land in the area, explaining that community gardens would be developed as well.
Sarah Troxtell expressed excitement about not only being able to provide an affordable living option for residents, but also being able to provide “a place where they can hopefully thrive.”
Travis Troxtell commented that they have been blessed as a family, and to “please allow us the opportunity to bless others.”
Public comment on the matter was given by majority of the same commenters from the variance request, beginning with the woman claiming to be a part-time resident with property nearby.
She stated that if the county does not uphold the “historic zoning already in place” there will be a cumulative loss of peace, tranquility and agricultural views.
O’Dell previously explained to the BoCC in April that the county adopted its LURs in 2006 and that the parcel in question previously operated as a mobile home park that was shut down before the implementation of the county’s LURs.
He also noted in that meeting that the development would not be a “drastic change to the landscape.”
The same commenter later spoke in favor of the agritourism development proposed on the neighboring property, which plans to develop five tiny homes to operate a wilderness lodge.
During the Troxtell rezone request, she also stated that “radical rezoning” causes long-term harm to rural communities.
She went on to mention that since the time of receiving a notification for the Troxtell land use hearing, she had received a second notice of a different resident along U.S. 84 “wanting to do the same thing,” indicating that a thing called “zoning creep” is already happening and the county would be setting a precedent with its decision.
Another commenter expressed that this rezone request does not meet the county’s criteria to be rezoned as a MHP, and that the MHP failed over 20 years ago due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure in the area.
English expressed that the loss of agricultural land will result in higher taxes for local residents in the area.
He went on to state that while the landowners have a passion for the land, “this is not the landowners, this is a transient community that’s coming in that does not have a stake in the community associated with protection of the land and what we all moved here for,” while urging the commissioners to keep in mind what he described as a “transient zoning” strategy.
Planning commissioner Andre Redstone also requested to offer comment as either a member of the general public or member of the planning commission, referring to the county attorney to what would be more appropriate.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovaninni explained that Redstone could speak as a member of the general public.
Redstone expressed concerns of spot zoning, claiming that it is illegal to do so in the state of Colorado.
Redstone then attempted to make a comment as both a member of the general public and the planning commission before being interrupted by Brown, who stated he did not want to “muddy the waters,” asking Redstone to keep his comments as a member of the general public.
Giovaninni indicated that she was not familiar with a state statute that expressly prohibits spot zoning.
Other concerns about water availability were brought up, as well as the notion that “progress is gonna happen,” but that this type of development may not be suitable in a rural area with agricultural land surrounding it.
Brown commented that there were a number of “opposing statements,” directing his question to O’Dell to find “the actuality” of the situation, asking if there is a well on the property for the THV development.
O’Dell indicated there is no well yet and that reports were sent to the state’s Division of Water Resources, which indicated that a well producing 50 gallons per minute, or 16.8 acre-feet, per year could be placed on the property and would not overappropriate water use of the area.
He indicated the Division of Water Resources expressed that it is within the ability of the Troxtells to apply for a well permit.
“So, that’s where staff leans on the professionals and their respective agencies on whether or not we can facilitate this use, or recommend approval for this use,” O’Dell said.
O’Dell also commented on Redstone’s remarks in regard to spot zoning being prohibited in Colorado, saying, “I don’t know the validity behind that.”
He explained that he was confident in his interpretation of the county’s LURs, not state statute.
“I think it’s a great concept; I think it’s the wrong area,” Ranson said, expressing an understanding of water concerns.
He went on to state that the development would have more than a minimal impact on neighbors and that he does not believe this is an affordable housing project.
Ranson also mentioned a story told to him by residents who recently bought property in the area and were told by their real estate agent that the parcel in question would never be operated as a mobile home park ever again.
“I do have some concern on the whole spot zoning issue,” he said, expressing that he appreciated the Troxtell’s efforts, “just think it’s the wrong area.”
Commissioner Veronica Medina echoed Ranson’s comments, saying she likes the idea, but, “I don’t think this is the right spot.”
Medina also commented that she had concerns about the agricultural industry overall in the community after hearing from ranchers that they had to move their cattle because of water availability this summer.
“I feel like in hearing all of the evidence that was presented today, … in hearing what the community has to say, the neighbors definitely shed a different light for me on this property,” Medina said, while commending the intentions of the Troxtells.
“But, unfortunately, in my opinion, this is not the right spot for it,” she added.
Ranson then made a motion to deny the rezone request, which was seconded by Brown, who offered additional comments before voting on the matter.
Brown stated that he can certainly understand the concerns coming from the agricultural community and, “for me, that’s my deciding point, how it’s impacting the neighbors.”
He also mentioned that the county and community needs to be careful that the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) mindset is not used every time.
“We’ve all come here and we’ve all taken a piece of somebody’s backyard to be here,” he said, explaining that every driveway, road and home developed impacts somebody.
“We’re all impacting someone,” he said, expressing that the NIMBY attitude is not his first go-to and that the overall impact needs to be considered.
“Because we have to continue to provide the resources for us to grow and for people to live here in all different kinds of housing situations, from top to bottom,” Brown said.
Medina commented that in this scenario she did not view it as a NIMBY matter, only because she did not see it fixing or providing affordable housing solutions.
Medina explained the development is providing a spot for residents to place their own tiny home or mobile home.
“It’s just the wrong spot,” Medina added.
Ranson’s motion was then unanimously approved.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>