On May 19, the Pagosa Springs Town Council denied an appeal brought by the Mountain Vista Townhome Association’s Board of Directors contending that the town’s approval of a plat amendment application was done incorrectly.
The approved application in question was for the Neel Plat Amendment for properties addressed as 144 Wildwood Drive and 505B County Road 600 (Piedra Road), which would change boundary lines for those two properties near the Mountain Vista Townhomes.
The townhome’s board of directors cited Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) Section 2.4.14 for its claim suggesting that Development Director James Dickhoff “incorrectly interpreted” the code for approving the Neel Plat Amendment as a minor subdivision.
Mountain Vista’s appeal also went before the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission, where it was also denied.
Ron Barnum, representing the townhome’s board of directors at the hearing, stated that the townhome association believes that the plat amendment in question should have been approved as a major subdivision, instead of a minor, which has a different, more rigorous process for approval.
Council member Mat deGraaf asked, “So, the townhomes would prefer a major subdivision there, instead of four homes? Can you help me understand that?”
Barnum explained that the townhome association would rather have one major subdivision, as opposed to two minors, so that the area would get all the infrastructure “improvements and amenities” that a major subdivision would bring to the immediate area and for Pagosa in general.
He said that he didn’t like “uncontrolled activity of development,” and that being under the major subdivision would bring more controlled development, asking the council to think about “community priorities.”
The appellant’s appeal conclusion states, “This development should be treated as a Major Subdivision and therefore must be subject to the appropriate approvals, design standards and zoning requirements.”
Council member Brooks Lindner asked, “Do you want it as a major subdivision to see the improvements to Wildwood Drive? Is that your big ask?”
Barnum affirmed that, yes, “we’d like to see the major and see the kind of development we want to see, something we’re proud of.”
Dickhoff defended his decision at the hearing, stating, “Yes, the code is different for minor versus major subdivisions,” but added that these two “properties have the right to develop, just as Mountain Vista had the right to develop as it did.”
He added that the addition of four new single-family homes in the area is ideal for lower density,” and with the LUDC’s code on “compatibility,” any future development around these two properties would have to meet this compatibility standard and might need to stay single-family residential.
“In general, I think my decision was compatible with the code,” he said.
Council member Gary Williams stated that he tends to put a lot of trust in both the town’s planning commission, which denied the appeal, and in the town’s “professional staff.”
“We’re not the experts here,” he said, and “we hire good people and I support them. … My inclination is to support town staff,” he said.
Council member Leonard Martinez asked Dickhoff if he could discuss the “pros and cons” of each scenario, with one being a minor subdivision and the other being a major subdivision.
Dickhoff replied that his job is not to favor one development scenario over the other, but it was simply to interpret the code as it is written.
Mayor Shari Pierce pushed back on that, saying the way she interpreted the code would make this a major subdivision.
When a motion was made to deny the appeal, it was seconded and supported by the majority of the council, upholding the town’s decision, with Pierce voting against the motion.
>