A rezoning request to allow for employee housing was recently discussed by multiple county boards before being approved by the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC).
The Archuleta County Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 27 consisted of nearly an hour-long discussion in regard to a rezone request being put forward by the Sharp family for the approval of two tiny homes and three RV pads to serve as housing for their ranch employees.
Planning Manager Owen O’Dell explained that the rezone request “comes out of the creation of Snowball Five minor subdivision,” which was approved by the planning commission in October 2024. That subdivision divided the Sharp’s land into two parcels, one approximately 97 acres and the second approximately five acres.
O’Dell noted that the property was zoned as agricultural ranching, which allows for a maximum number of two dwelling units.
O’Dell also mentioned the area is designated as very low-density residential under the county’s future land use map.
Attached to the meeting’s agenda is a narrative from the Sharp family stating that La Plata Electric Association (LPEA) and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) will be able to serve the property.
The planning commission ultimately recommended approval for the rezone with a split vote of 3-1, with planning commissioner Peter Beaudry being opposed and commissioners Matt Nobles, Andre Redstone and Peter Vecvangs voting in favor.
The matter was then considered and unanimously approved by the BoCC on March 6.
During the Feb. 27 meeting, O’Dell explained that the Sharps intend to provide housing for full-time and seasonal employees on their ranch.
O’Dell mentioned that the request to rezone the property as a mobile home park will allow the Sharps to have a tiny home village designation, which requires a use-by-right permit under the county’s land use regulations.
He went on to explain that in order for a rezoning application to be reviewed, the applicant must meet at least one of 10 review criteria outlined in the county’s land use regulations, noting the application met eight of those 10 listed criteria.
O’Dell added that the development of employee housing is in line with the community’s economic development plan.
Questions from the planning commissioners revolved around the significance of meeting one or all of the review criteria, along with if rezoning the property is the best approach to accommodate the plans and goals of the Sharp family.
Development Director Pamela Flowers explained that as long as at least one of the review criteria are met, then there is a reason to consider a rezone, and O’Dell commented that with the applicant meeting eight of the 10 review criteria, it exemplifies their compliance with the county’s regulations.
Flowers mentioned that some of the criteria are conflicting, making it impossible for an applicant to be able to meet all 10 review criteria elements.
Redstone voiced concern over the planning commission setting a precedent with its decision moving forward, noting the parcel in question is under the 35 acre minimum to be zoned as agricultural ranching.
Nobles also mentioned that the property could potentially be sold in the future and that future owners may seek to expand on the amount of dwelling units on the property.
Nobles commented that the planning commission previously approved the subdivision, and “now you’re coming back and asking for a rezone as a mobile home park.”
Nobles inquired if the property could seek lodging permit approval rather than a rezone.
O’Dell explained that lodging is for commercial use, while the intention of the rezone is to provide residential housing.
“It’s like a rental situation,” Flowers added.
O’Dell further noted that a maximum of two dwelling units is allowed for parcels three acres in size, which includes RVs.
He also mentioned there are dimensional standards as to how many mobile homes are allowed and that any additional dwelling units would have to be approved by the county if a new owner were to come in and wish to increase the amount of tiny homes on the property.
O’Dell also noted that the property’s septic system would need to be able to accommodate any additions, noting the current design is for the septic system to be able to handle three tiny homes.
O’Dell also reminded the planning commission that it is only considering the rezoning request in order for a tiny home village designation.
Nobles asked about other mobile home parks zoned in the county, with O’Dell explaining that mobile home parks are typically always “spot zoned” in nature, noting the last mobile home park approved in the county was in 2006, when the land use regulations were first introduced.
Redstone described the rezoning request as a “multifaceted application” while questioning if the planning commission could support its approval without setting a precedent for future cases.
Flowers explained that since the Snowball Five minor subdivision occurred, the planning department has changed its policy to where it will no longer approve the dividing of parcels under the 35-acre threshold attached to agriculture ranching zoning.
Flowers also explained that if the policy would have been changed before this application, the process would have happened in a reverse manner.
O’Dell and Flowers both explained that county staff examined multiple other options to address the Sharp’s request and found the rezone request for a mobile home park would allow them to obtain a tiny home village use permit.
“This is what works,” O’Dell stated.
No public comment on the matter, in favor or against, was given at the planning commission meeting.
The property owners were in attendance at the BoCC meeting on March 6, and stated they have no intention to sell their property, implying the family is rooted in Pagosa Springs, with multiple family members owning various properties in the county, along with running three small businesses, mainly related to ranching.
Jamie Sharp commented that she originally bought this property “in order to maintain the character of the area.”
She added, “We all live in Pagosa; we want to stay in Pagosa.”
One public comment from individuals claiming to represent the property’s northern neighbors stated they were not opposed to the Sharp’s proposal and planned use of the tiny home village to provide employee housing, but wanted clarification on if a larger mobile home park could result if the Sharps ever sell the property.
O’Dell and Flowers explained that a new buyer could add additional mobile home units, noting the maximum number of units allowed is 12 mobile homes per acre, and that density caps, dimensional standards and the service ability of PAWSD and LPEA would all have to be considered for any additions.
“They could have more, but not 60,” Flowers said.
Alex Sharp mentioned that the family understands the concerns from their neighbor and the county planning commissioners of what could happen if the property is sold with it being zoned as a mobile home park, but reiterated the family has “zero interest” in selling the property.
Commissioner Veronica Medina acknowledged the statements from the family about their intentions not to sell, but noted that there is no “crystal ball” with answers about what the future might hold.
Commissioner Warren Brown acknowledged the same concerns, while also considering the viewpoint of the applicant asking neighbors for an agreement on what could happen to their properties if the neighbors decided to sell their land.
Brown noted that those two requests do not seem any different from each other while also not being appropriate, indicating that if the applicant is meeting the qualifications, then the request should be approved.
Brown then motioned to approve the request, which was unanimously approved by the BoCC.
clayton@pagosasun.com
