The Archuleta County Planning Commission voted unanimously to table its decision on a proposed recreational vehicle (RV) park during its regular meeting held on July 23.
The proposal was made by property owner Kevin O’Brien, who applied for a board conditional use permit (BCUP) in order to operate a “small-scale agritourism campground” at his full-time residence and ranch located at 6116 U.S 84, which is currently zoned as agricultural ranching under the county’s adopted zoning map.
The proposal was presented by county planner Valarie Capone, explaining the proposal includes 20 RV sites to be developed in two phases.
According to the staff report attached in the meeting’s agenda, each site would have potable water connected to the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) system. The development would also include a dog park, playground and other common areas for guests.
Planning commissioner Peter Vecvanags commented that the planning commission did not receive additional information that staff was presenting at the meeting.
Capone indicated that all materials were available on the county’s website under planning commission meeting agenda.
Planning commission chair Matt Nobles stated, “We did not receive the material,” explaining that staff was welcome to go through its presentation with the applicant being present, “but I think it’s very unfair to the public.”
A three-page staff report is attached in the meeting’s agenda, but no additional presentations were included in the agenda documents.
“This was not posted online,” Vecvanags added.
Capone went on to explain that each proposed RV site would be 45 feet by 75 feet, with its own fire ring and electricity hookup.
She also noted that a full design for a septic system had been submitted for the county to review.
Capone also noted that the property owners have received an access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Capone indicated that developmental objectives like design compatibility and the impact on natural resources and wildlife in the area “have been adequately addressed.”
She also indicated that all submittal requirements and review criteria for proposed BCUP have been met, and therefore staff recommends the approval of the Cerulean Skies Ranch RV Park, with the condition that the applicant shall obtain all applicable storm water permits or waivers from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
O’Brien then presented the project for his property, explaining that he and his wife have spent more than a year working with the county, neighbors and professional engineers “to ensure that the project meets or exceeds the development standards.”
He explained that after taking a cross-country road trip, he and wife “were inspired by the families raising children alongside animals, caring for the land, welcoming guests and following regenerative principles” in Archuleta County.
He added that being close to New Mexico is important for being closer to family and that the San Juan Mountains were a sign that Pagosa Springs would be their home.
O’Brien commented that developing the agricultural side of his property and completing this permitting process would “allow us to pursue the full vision.”
He acknowledged that ranching at more than 7,000 feet in elevation in Colorado “is a different challenge,” explaining that he has sought out guidance from professional agencies in order to “try to put our best foot forward.”
“Our vision is to create a homestead-scale regenerative ranch that enriches the land and community by building healthy soil, raising healthy animals, nourishing our neighbors and hosting guests. We want to learn, connect and restore nature,” O’Brien said.
He stressed that the BCUP is essential in being able to host guests at the ranch.
“These would not simply be places for travelers to park their RV overnight,” he said, explaining they intend to offer experience ranch stays for people to learn how a small ranch operates.
He explained that the county’s current land use regulations (LURs) have this proposal as an RV park “because there is not a specific agritourism campground use, and the wilderness lodging dude-ranch classification is applicable to cabins rather than RVs.”
O’Brien clarified that the proposal is not to operate a “traditional” RV park and is intentionally being limited to 20 spaces “because the campground is intended to support the ranch, rather than ranch being created to support the campground.”
He also commented that this project strongly supports the county’s community plan, which calls for the preservation of agricultural areas and open spaces, “while also recognizing tourism and outdoor recreation … are important parts to the local economy.”
He added, “Agritourism manages to support these conflicting goals.”
In response to a question from planning commissioner Sandra Dillon, O’Brien indicated that the average length of stay at the property would likely be three to four nights.
“So, basically kind of a short-term rental basically,” Dillon said.
Multiple public comments were given on the matter, with the initial commenter stating she owns property directly across from the proposed RV park.
The commenter explained that she is opposing the project as over the last few years landowners in the area have shown up and asked for land uses such as this to be denied, “as it is incompatible with rural community, and its impacts cannot be adequately mitigated.”
She clarified that she is not opposed to ranching and farming practices on the land, but specifically opposed to the RV park.
She also noted that U.S. 84 is a main entrance into the Pagosa Springs community.
“Its land and working ranches, and agricultural heritage, are part of what makes our community fabulous and wanting to come and live there,” she said, noting other concerns about elk migration patterns in the area of the proposed project.
She stated that increasing “development and urban sprawl” could fragment that habitat and interfere with established migration patterns.
The next commenter explained that he owns a regenerative agritourism based farm in the same area of the proposed project.
He stated that farmers and ranches struggle to make it on their own these days and that has been the birth of the agritourism industry, claiming that if the community wants to diversify beyond the hot springs, this is the way to do it.
“We are healing the lands,” he said.
“The challenge I see are people with second homes,” he added, stating that people not even living here are letting cattle graze and decimate the soil. “Without building these business models we will never have small ranchers and farmers in our community.”
The next commenter addressed the statement in regard to second homeowners, explaining that he is the ranch caretaker for the property referenced by the previous commenter, and that is his home.
He stated that he is not against agricultural uses of the land, but is opposed to the RV park.
The commenter also referenced a similar project that was proposed in the area last summer that would’ve featured multiple tiny homes, claiming that was denied because it would have been “spot zoning.”
Another commenter stated he was an owner of an existing RV park in the county and asked why this proposed project does not include infrastructure required by the state for RV parks such as a bathhouse or other facilities compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
He added that the project is “creating an unbalanced system,” asking the commission how the project could be approved without meeting certain state requirements.
Nobles then closed public comment while reiterating that the planning commission members did not receive the staff presentation beforehand.
“This is the first time that the commission has seen these slides. I have a big issue with that,” he said.
Nobles then read from a letter he received from a constituent voicing concerns over the lack of information made publicly available in regard to the proposed project.
He then stated that he would entertain a motion to table the matter until additional necessary information is provided and the commission has adequate time to review the documents.
Planning commissioner Mont McAllister stated he had similar concerns and motioned to table the matter.
He also commented, “I think it’s a great project,” encouraging agritourism ventures, “but we need more information.”
The motion was then seconded and unanimously approved by the commission.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>