On Oct. 7, a land use hearing was held by the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in which the BoCC unanimously approved a board conditional use permit (BCUP) for a wilderness lodging establishment to be located at 6252a U.S. 84.
According to the meeting’s agenda, the applicant, Brian Wattier, representing 84 Ranch, intends to “operate an agriculturally based lodging establishment” with plans to install five mobile cabins for guest accommodation. Those cabins will be 200 to 400 square feet in size with a bathroom in each.
The agenda adds, “84 Ranch LLC aims to offer hands-on activities for the guests to learn the intricacies of ranching and farming in Archuleta County.”
The Archuleta County planning commission initially heard the application during its Aug. 28 regular meeting, at which the application was recommended for approval by the commission by a split vote of 3-2.
Planning commissioners who voted against recommended approval of the application cited concerns about this causing a chain reaction of development across the county.
During the Oct. 7 BoCC meeting, Planning Manager Melissa Ryan presented the staff report, noting that the report was completed by the former planning manager, Owen O’Dell.
Ryan explained that the property in question is currently zoned as agricultural ranching, and that the county’s current land use regulations (LURs) allow wilderness lodging establishments in that zoning classification with the approval of a BCUP.
Ryan also indicated that based on evidence provided, the applicant met goals and objectives of the LURs and staff recommended approval of the BCUP.
Wattier spoke about the project and his intentions with his ranch while also acknowledging concerns from nearby residents and letters of opposition.
Wattier described it as a small agritourism project.
“We’re a family ranch,” he said, explaining that he and his family moved here to learn and teach people about regenerative farming and provide local food.
Wattier explained that he is pursuing a BCUP for a wilderness lodge, but that his presentation was more about agritourism that is designed to expose families to agriculture “through hands-on ranch stay experiences and regenerative agriculture,” describing that as a “new way of talking about the organic ranch.”
He added, “The whole goal is to replenish the soil.”
He noted that no pesticides are used, along with practicing rotational grazing with livestock.
Wattier claimed that agritourism is one of the fastest-growing forms of tourism currently, with the birth of it stemming from farmers and ranchers who have been struggling to support themselves solely from selling crops or livestock.
He mentioned that this is a way to educate people, but “also support the farmers and ranchers financially.”
Wattier went on to explain that he was requesting approval for five tiny home units to be used as guest cabins, stating that a use-by-right permit allows him to have three.
Wattier described the units as “luxury tiny homes,” also mentioning that amenities such as a cold plunge, sauna and massages may also be available at the ranch at some point.
He commented that relaxing and being part of the land, “that is the whole goal.”
When addressing the letters of opposition, Wattier stated, “I completely understand,” explaining four letters had been submitted.
Wattier explained that some residents have expressed that his project and intended use of his ranch is generating a high-density project, “similar to the Troxtell’s project.”
He commented that his project is “very different” and on a “much smaller scale,” noting the Troxtells were requesting to have 40 tiny home units on their property, and he is requesting five.
For more information on the Troxtell project, see the article “Commissioners deny rezone request for tiny home park on U.S. 84” published in the Sept. 11 issue of The SUN.
Wattier then spoke about concerns about water availability being expressed, explaining that his property will be connected to Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation (PAWSD) water lines, which will be used for himself, guests and livestock.
He also explained that he plans to use a wastewater system engineered “where I’ll be taking the PAWSD water and putting it back into the earth.”
He added, “So, I actually added refurbished water to the water table on my land.”
Wattier also addressed concerns about proper conservation, explaining that he has worked closely with the National Resource Conservation Service to implement proper conservation practices on his land, and that there are multiple emergency access points.
Wattier then explained that “these are mobile homes,” referring to the cabins, and noting that no foundation will be constructed for the cabins.
Wattier then brought up the matter of recreational vehicles (RVs) being seen on his property, stating, “I do not have an RV park on my land.”
He explained that he does not charge people to stay in their RV on his land, but that he is a part of a program called Harvest Hosts, which is a membership-based program that provides RV owners with overnight stays at a network of unique host locations, including farms.
Wattier commented that the reason people do this is to be able to travel the country in an RV and not have to pay to stay at RV parks or campgrounds.
He explained that people who use the membership are “requested to purchase products from that business” they are staying at, but they are not required to purchase anything.
Wattier noted that there were concerns expressed about him not paying taxes on that, to which indicated he does and that he “believes in paying taxes.”
Commissioner John Ranson asked if the Harvest Hosts program is part of the wilderness lodging business, with Wattier explaining that he had been doing that over the past two years to see if he had a “viable destination.”
He then explained that his focus at the meeting was the tiny home cabins and that he was not requesting additional RVs, though he may want to continue doing that later on, while also restating that he does not want to have an RV park.
Ranson then asked if Wattier could describe the tiny home cabins, to which he stated, “it’s on wheels and it has a VIN number.”
He explained that each unit would have a restroom, shower, kitchenette and skirting around the bottom.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked if a permit would be necessary to host RV guests through the Harvest Hosts program, with Ryan explaining that it does not matter if guests are being charged or not, and that a permit would be needed for an RV park.
Commissioner Veronica Medina commented that the question of an RV park was not the matter being presented to the board.
Ryan indicated that she had no knowledge of the Harvest Hosts program beforehand and that it would be a separate permitting process if Wattier wants to continue doing that.
In response to another question from Ranson, Ryan clarified that staff recommended approval of the BCUP.
Multiple public comments were given on the matter, with three people speaking in favor of the project and three people opposing it.
Those opposing the project expressed concerns over the narrative around the project changing to potentially incorporate activities such as ATV and snowmobile rides.
One resident stated, “This project will have a direct impact on our quality of life right across the road.”
Another commenter claimed that the property is not zoned for this type of use, appealing to the BoCC “to enforce the building codes and the zoning regulations that you currently have in place.”
Other concerns over resources and the effect on the surrounding area, as well as the quality of the tiny homes, were also expressed by those opposing the project.
One commenter stated that “no matter how fancy they are on the inside,” the tiny homes are still manufactured products with skirting being placed in the middle of an agricultural environment.
Nearby residents who spoke in favor of Wattier’s project commended his passion for regenerative farming and the benefits to the community by providing local food, education and local employment.
One commenter explained Wattier’s agritourism is “fully consistent” with the community plan and the character of the surrounding area.
One commenter gave an anecdotal story about their own experience of living in an RV traveling and staying at places like Wattier’s project and the value gained from that experience.
Brown asked if the county’s zoning allows for this type of operation, with Ryan confirming that wilderness lodges are allowed in agricultural ranching zones with the approval of a BCUP, and that the zoning does not change if the board approves it.
Medina referred to county attorney Cathleen Giovannini, asking if what was being requested met the standards.
Giovannini responded that she personally believes the application met all the standards, but that it is up to the BoCC to compare the application to the county’s review criteria.
Brown moved to approve the BCUP and, after the motion was seconded by Ranson, Brown offered a comment in regard to the county diversifying its economy, saying, “We have to be consistent with what we say and in what our actions are, and this is as close to agriculture as we can get.”
Ranson agreed that this project is a way to diversify the local economy.
Brown’s motion was then unanimously approved.
For more information on the planning commission’s hearing of the BCUP application, see the article “County planning commission approves permit for agritourism development” in the Sept. 11 edition of The SUN.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>