A Test of Wills

Last time I weighed-in with an article in the Daily Post was in response to articles posted by Teddy Herzog and Bill Hudson following the closure of the downtown City Market. They were optimistic for the long term, which ran counter to basic economic models for rural communities taking place for a generation. My fear at the time was that this community would compromise it’s future to jump start the economy in the short term - a fear now playing out.

In response to pressure brought to bear from public, government and private sources the Pagosa Water and Sewer District (“PAWSD”), Archuleta County and the Town of Pagosa Springs all re-structured fee schedules on the assumption it jump-start local development. These fees were established based on empirical data, research and public hearings/input; reducing, suspending and forgiving them has not had the same justification. This window of opportunity enticed at least one project to come forward - the Siebel Senior Living Development Proposal.

Notice of this proposal first surfaced in July, 9 2010 as a sketch plan for a parcel of land at the southwest corner of North Pagosa Blvd. and Lake Forest Circle (south intersection) of approximately 9.08 acres. It was first proposed as a very ambitious plan, which has since been trimmed back to the much more modest development proposal put forward on January 6, 2011. Although surrounded by residential subdivision development, this particular parcel is far from residential, and has a higher floor to area ratio than the residential neighborhoods that surround it; save to the north across North Pagosa Blvd. This project is so tenuous, the developer stated at a public meeting that it was viable only as a result of the PAWSD moratorium. Approval in the short term may have unintended long term negative results.

The project started as an application for a planned unit development (PUD), but inexplicably, the application has morphed into one for a conditional use permit (CUP). This was explained in a public meeting I attended as more appropriate since it was a PUD in static form, but had been designated a CUP for development process purposes.

I am an interested observer to these proceedings because my home may be impacted by this development. As a result I have followed this through the process. Now, I have a few thoughts regarding this development - I see it as a test of wills between elected leadership charged with protecting the public’s interests, and the public policies and laws on the books. The ramifications emanating from the decision on this project will set a precedent, and standards, for future development. In many ways, it is akin to the test of wills that took place regarding Tree Tops.

On August 22, 2006 a report was issued by the Archuleta County Building & Planning Department regarding Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (“PLPOA”) Planned Unit Development Land Use Designation Process. This report was written as one of many “errors and omissions” follow-ups to the newly minted local land use code. Essentially, the report memorialized a decision regarding a review of approximately two percent (2%) or 136 parcels of the 6,290 parcels in PLPOA that were left unknown for zoning purposes.

The proposed site of the Siebel Senior Living Center is one of those parcels. According to the report the County was to continue working with PLPOA to classify each of the 136 lots into one of 26 zoning categories, but until then the default zoning designation for these parcels was to be “....treated as a Final PUD for the purpose of obtaining a land use permit through the County.” The County never took any action to classify the zoning for any of those 136 parcels, including the site of the proposed Siebel development.

The report provides only the conclusions; the findings that led to those conclusions were not provided, but it appears from the cooperative spirit of the report that PLPOA wanted to make sure the requirement of “compatibility” contained in the PUD process assured PLPOA could weigh-in on development proposals, and they would be part of the classification of these so-called “out-lots”. The PUD process has much higher standards for approval than does the CUP process, and mandates adherence to the community plan as well.

PLPOA has taken a hands-off approach to the Siebel proposed development. Without the PLPOA asserting it’s assured rights under the report, the property owners around the development site are left to twist in the wind. It occurs to this observer the County has determined it is no longer obliged to assure standards adopted to protect the public and assure public interests are accounted for have been abandoned. Only standards that assure the developer is protected and the interests of the developer are accounted for are applicable.

There is no doubt in my mind, planning department staff are not changing or making policy in disregard of established public policies and the land use code. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Siebel has sought to manipulate policy or law. Rather, this test of wills between established public policy and law, and this CUP application, comes as the result of elected leadership seated as the board of county commissioners manipulating and disregarding policy and law. These are the same people who fired the duly appointed planning commissioners without cause or justification; the same people who dismantled due process in land use planning; the same people who adopted a urban services area (the so-called USA) rather than follow the State mandated Three Mile Plan that would have actually protected the public and future public interests; the same people who gave extension to development rights far in excess of State law; and the same people who are charting a course for economic development that will assure the same boom-&-bust cycle that is now busted.

In a test of wills, it is far better for the community to rely on the will of the people expressed by duly adopted public policy and law rather than decisions made in a knee-jerk top-down fashion. This may be a country of laws rather than men, but in Archuleta County decisions are made by men without regard for law and policy.