The Archuleta County Planning Commission approved a board conditional use permit (CUP) for an agriculturally based lodging establishment for the 84 Ranch located at 6252A U.S. 84 during its Aug. 28 regular meeting.
The permit was ultimately approved by a split vote of 3-2.
According to the presentation on the matter given by now former planning manager Owen O’Dell, 84 Ranch plans to install five mobile cabins for guest accommodation, which will be studio units ranging in size from 200 to 400 square feet with a bathroom in each unit.
“84 Ranch LLC aims to offer hands-on activities for the guests to learn the intricacies of ranching and farming in Archuleta County,” the meeting’s agenda notes.
Prior to hearing the staff presentation on the matter by O’Dell, planning commission chair Matt Nobles indicated that he would be abstaining from voting on the matter due to his relationship with the applicant.
The applicant for the CUP, representing 84 Ranch, is Brian Wattier.
“Due to my relationship with Mr. Wattier, I will abstain my vote,” Nobles said, explaining that he could still be involved in the discussion, based on his meeting with O’Dell.
Nobles indicated that in the event of a tie vote on the matter, the commission’s alternate member, Mont McAlister, would need to vote.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini confirmed that would be the case.
The matter initially ended in a tie vote of 2-2, with planning commissioners Peter Beaudry and David Pribble voting in favor of approving the permit, and planning commissioners Andre Redstone and Peter Vecavangs voting against.
A revote was then cast, with McAlister voting in favor of approving the permit. A roll-call vote was then requested by Redstone, to which only McAlister individually stated his vote. The other votes were not expressively identified in a roll-call format, though Redstone and Vecvangs voted against.
Beaudry, Pribble and McAlister ultimately voted in favor approving the permit.
During O’Dell’s presentation, he explained that the parcel is zoned as agricultural ranching, or AR, and the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations allow for wilderness lodging operations in districts zoned as AR with the approval of a board CUP.
He noted the county’s future land use and zoning map designates the parcel as AR, as well, with very low-density residential development.
O’Dell noted that staff conducted a “detailed review” of the requirements for the application.
According to his report, after initial review of the application, staff determined that additional material was needed to better evaluate the proposal, which is detailed in a “Letter of Guidance” sent to the applicant.
“The applicant has worked with Staff over the last eight (8) months to meet the minimum requirements to bring this proposal to a public meeting,” O’Dell’s report states.
The review criteria includes things such as the impact of the development on the county’s objectives, impact of public services and infrastructure, traffic impacts, the effect of the use upon the character in the surrounding area, adequacy of design features, effects on natural resources, and other factors determined by the planning commission and board of county commissioners.
O’Dell also outlined the necessary findings needed to approve the permit that include that the location, use and maintenance of the development “will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.”
Other necessary findings include that adequate utilities and public services will be available, and the proposed use is compatible with adjacent property uses, according to O’Dell’s report.
Included in O’Dell’s report is a recommendation for the planning commission to approve the application with a total of six additional conditions.
Those conditions include things such as paving and parking requirements, constructing fencing to ensure livestock remains at least 50 feet from all lodging units, landscaping requirements and opening an application with the county’s Water Quality Department prior to operating the proposed lodging units.
Following O’Dell’s presentation, Wattier was given the chance to provide additional comments.
Wattier explained that neighboring property owners have expressed comments on the project, “and I’d like to kind of address a couple of those,” explaining this project was a dream to do when he first moved to the area.
“We don’t want to impact neighbors negatively or anything like that, and that’s why we purchased the land where we’re located,” he said.
Wattier explained he was applying for the permit to expand agritourism through regenerative agricultural practices, explaining that means bringing back the old ways of farming and not using any chemicals or forms of tilling.
“My goal is to regenerate my soil, as well as educate others,” he said, explaining school and church groups could come to learn about old ways of farming.
Wattier explained that his thought was that by developing five tiny home cabins on his property, it would have “low impact” on his neighbors and give him the opportunity to operate guest retreats.
He indicated he has already been doing this for the past year and half with guests “dry camping” on his land.
“People come from all around the country that want to see what we’re doing on the ranch,” he said.
Wattier stated that he knows his business model works well, “and now we’re just looking to increase to have more guests actually on our land with it.”
He went on to speak about neighbors’ concerns, stating he understands and respects every neighbor’s concern, “but I think there may be some confusion with some of those things.”
Wattier referenced a previous development proposal for a 40-unit tiny home complex to be constructed on the property adjacent to his to the north.
That proposal included a board CUP to operate tiny homes along with a rezone request that would’ve changed the zoning from AR to a mobile home park zoning designation.
Those proposals were submitted by Travis and Sarah Troxtell to the planning commission in April, with the rezone request being approved by a 4-1 vote and a tiny home village permit approved by staff on April 11.
The rezone request then went to the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) later that month and was tabled.
The BoCC then reconsidered the matter during a regular meeting in August, where the rezone request was unanimously denied, along with a paving variance request.
During the Aug. 28, planning commission meeting, Wattier explained one of the main concerns expressed by residents over the Troxtell proposal was the issue of water.
He stated that a couple of neighboring residents wrote to the county saying, “Essentially, I’m doing the same thing as they are but just rebranding it as agritourism.”
Wattier expressed that there is a difference in developing 40 tiny homes versus five tiny homes, noting that this would be short-term, not long-term rentals.
He also explained that his property is on “city water” and that he would not be drilling any wells.
“There’s no one in the community that’s actually putting in more ground water than I am,” he said.
He also acknowledged septic system concerns, stating his system would be smaller than many of his neighbors’ with 5,000- to 6,000-square-foot homes.
Wattier noted that he will have a minimum of a two or three night stay for guests, which will minimize the amount of traffic coming and going from the property.
Wattier described the project as a “small, boutique family hotel” that won’t generate a lot of noise.
He also disagreed with comments that this is a “high-intensity development,” stating that five cabins is a “lower development, and I don’t think there’s gonna be much impact for my neighbors with all that.”
Wattier then acknowledged concerns about keeping the area’s agricultural centers and the importance of keeping wildlife passages open, explaining he has planted native species on his property and constructed fencing to allow for deer and elk to be able to move through.
“I have a very big passion about agriculture,” he said, explaining he is frustrated when neighbors express that what he is doing may be going against the importance of agriculture.
“‘Cause what I see my neighbors do is go through, try to get a tax break so they let some other ranchers come in. They overgraze, they eat down — they’re hurting our land,” he said, claiming those practices hurt the water table.
Wattier stated that he hopes to work with ranchers to help rebuild the soils and preserve the area’s water table.
“My goal at 84 Ranch is to be all about community,” he said, explaining he wants to raise local foods for the community.
He further expressed that agritourism is the “fastest” growing type of tourism today, “and I think that’s the type of tourists we would all agree would be great to bring to our community.”
Wattier also indicated that he would be requesting a variance on the paving requirements that are asking him “to dump asphalt” in the middle of his ranch.
Planning commissioner Peter Beaudry asked if Wattier would entertain paving the initial entrance off the highway, which Wattier indicated he would.
O’Dell explained that the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) would install a new water meter on the property and could provide about 700 gallons per minute.
He also noted that the Pagosa Fire Protection District will accept the water flows generated on the property.
Nobles noted that it is “ironic” the fire training station next door to Wattier does not have “sufficient flow.”
Nobles also commented that, about two years ago, the county’s planning department tried to add agritourism to the county’s zoning code, noting the wilderness lodging is “kind of the best scenario to put him in.”
Nobles indicated that having three cabins is a use by right on AR-zoned properties and that Wattier is really just asking for an additional two.
“Just consider that, as well,” Nobles stated.
Planning commissioner Andre Redstone indicated he met the applicant “quite some time ago,” when he viewed his company’s products.
“We had no transactions, no history in that regard,” Redstone added, explaining he felt there was no conflict with this matter.
Redstone expressed a couple of questions on the proposal, addressing the “lack of support” letters and asking why the site plans do not indicate the applicant would be on “city water,” presumably resolving some of the neighbor’s concerns.
O’Dell explained his assumption that the comments from PAWSD indicated that there is PAWSD water service available on the property.
He further explained the applicant has an active application with PAWSD for service to be provided on the property.
Redstone expressed the importance of the general public being able to obtain all the necessary information related to the proposal that might address some “critical points” being brought up.
O’Dell explained that, according to the county’s codes, a lodging unit is a temporary accommodation, other than a vacation rental, that may be detached or attached, which can include tiny homes.
“This does not include units for permanent residency,” he stated, noting that the units must meet the applicable codes at the time of building.
Redstone indicated that, based on the county’s code, there is an “obligatory right” for the applicant to have three lodging units.
O’Dell explained that with Redstone’s comments on the number of lodging units allowed, in “actuality,” the total of three is not necessarily the applicant’s right, but that it is a “lesser impact” versus conditional use.
O’Dell clarified that a request for the three tiny homes to be operated as lodging units would be handled at an administrative level.
He noted the reasoning for requesting five units at this time is to prevent the applicant from getting bogged down and having to come back for another request at a later time.
In response to a question from the planning commission, Wattier indicated that does not use PAWSD water to irrigate his property.
O’Dell further clarified the application is for a wilderness lodging permit, and not for a lodging unit permit.
Four public comments were given on the matter, all in general support of the project, barring that all conditions and requirements are properly met.
Some of the comments included support for the project in that it would maintain agricultural ranching values, as compared to potential future higher-density projects.
One concern brought up by a commenter was the possibility of Wattier being able to add additional units in the future, or change the use from short-term to long-term.
O’Dell explained that the addition of units or the change of use would have to go through the Planning Department.
Following the public comment portion of the meeting, Beaudry moved to recommend approval of the board CUP with the six conditions presented.
Redstone then seconded the motion and initiated more discussion on the matter, asking Nobles if agritourism zoning had been brought up to the planning commission in the past, with Nobles indicating the “short answer is yes.”
Nobles explained that conversation was left in the hands of staff to bring back language addressing agritourism zoning, but noted that “never occurred.”
“We are nowhere with that,” O’Dell commented.
Redstone expressed that no matter how the proposal is offered up, “lodging is lodging,” asking how there is not an impact of the implication of expanding density.
“That’s the conundrum for me,” he added.
Nobles noted the planning commission recently approved a wilderness lodge permit for allowing up to 60 guests.
O’Dell commented that “density” refers to residential density and this proposal is a commercial use, “so it’s not technically, as the language of land us regulations presents, increasing residential density.”
O’Dell noted that it is an intensified use, but it is not increasing the density of one dwelling unit on the property.
Nobles referenced another proposal the planning commission approved, the Sharp rezone request, in which acreage was torn off to put cabins and RVs to increase housing for workers in the middle of AR-zoned parcels.
Nobles indicated that was “the last parcel that we will probably tear off without a rezone permit, but that was for permanent establishment.”
Redstone questioned how the planning commission could minimize the implication of setting a precedent for reviewing other properties in similar zoning districts under similar circumstances.
Nobles commented that his neighbors are more than welcome to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Redstone questioned how that does not ultimately amount to a “density change.”
O’Dell commented that it is up to the commission to determine whether or not the review agency, staff review and materials presented by the applicant is within the parameters of the intensity of the use “and doesn’t exceed our local resources.”
Redstone expressed that how the planning commission reviews the application is determined on how the application is made, being either a CUP or a variance, cautioning of potential precedents being established.
Redstone also expressed concerns of equity in the potential scenario that the county begins to see more and more of these agritourism proposals, in that if the first applicant will be treated as fairly as the 50th applicant.
“I think you’re putting yourself in a big legal battle right now, because [Wattier] has proved to be correct to the book today,” Nobles said.
Redstone mentioned that the planning commission’s job is not only to review applications presented to it, but to consider the bigger picture and impacts on a larger scale.
“I’m simply trying to look at all the aspects,” Redstone commented.
Other planning commission members expressed concerns with Nobles choosing to abstain from voting while seemingly expressing to be in favor of the project.
Vecvangs stated, “I feel a little uncomfortable with the fact that you’re abstaining from the vote, yet you’re up here basically championing and promoting this agenda item.”
Nobles explained he discussed the matter with O’Dell and that he was able to provide comments.
“I feel the applicant has done a great job. He has submitted exactly what he was supposed to,” Nobles said.
Vecvangs responded that it seems “a little gray” and that “if you’re not comfortable voting on it, then I don’t think you should be promoting it.”
Nobles responded that he only educated the commission on the history of the project.
“I think I’ve only clearly made statements tonight; I don’t think I’ve made anything in favor or in opposition,” he added.
Redstone commented that he believed the planning commission was following proper protocol while also deferring to Giovannini for further explanation.
“Honestly, going forward, typically if you have a conflict you not only don’t vote, you usually don’t participate,” Giovannini said, noting that sometimes it is even appropriate to leave the room.
She also added that is typical when there is a financial conflict.
The commission then voted on the seconded motion, which resulted in the 2-2 split and McAlister providing the deciding vote to approve the permit.
>