Hunter Ridge development extension denied by county

Developer now looking at septic and wells

[ By Katherine Nettles ]

After an involved discussion that included both county attorneys and input from several other involved parties, Gunnison County commissioners decided on Tuesday, December 22 to deny a preliminary plan extension request from developer Jamie Watt for his proposed 10-acre Hunter Ridge subdivision of 16 residential units.

The preliminary plan is due by January 7 and has not met required conditions for extension as stated in the county’s Land Use Resolution (LUR), based on a recent denial from the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District.

The commissioners had tabled their decision for two weeks to allow for the Water and San board to rule on whether it would accept the project into the district, securing central water and sewage services. That board denied the application during its December 16 meeting, as Community Development director Cathie Pagano reviewed in a memo:
“The District Board heard public testimony, a staff recommendation of support for the application, and guidance from their District Attorney, Marcus Lock. The District Board decided 2-1 to deny the Hunter Ridge request for inclusion into the Sanitation District.”

Pagano said that the Water and San denial meant one of the three LUR conditions required for an extension could no longer be met. That condition is the district’s willingness to serve the project. Both county attorney David Baumgarten and deputy county attorney Matthew Hoyt concurred.

Watt “could reapply to the district in the future. But at this time, for this application, the board did deny the request…and because the district’s willingness to serve has changed since the sketch plan, I don’t see that you would be able to make that finding and extend the preliminary plan submittal deadline,” concluded Pagano.

Commissioner Roland Mason asked why Water and San denied the application despite staff recommendation.

Public testimony opposed the application for a variety of reasons, answered Pagano. “[The district] did not give a list of specific reasons,” she said.

Watt and his attorney, Mike Dawson, argued that a member of the district board voted inappropriately, and that the board will be looking to clarify its language around annexation in the future. Dawson also said the district had only addressed an initial question of whether the property in question had the potential to be annexed into the town of Mt. Crested Butte. If an annexation is deemed possible, the district can choose to include a project. However, if an annexation is deemed unlikely, the district has to decide whether to make an exception.

“The board has discussed looking at this language under ‘not capable of being annexed’ to get some clarification on that,” said Dawson. “The applicant has spent a lot of time and money with the district working on engineering plans, and this was all delayed because of COVID this year. The extension request that is before you really has no harm to the county, because if we don’t get the inclusion within the district we acknowledge that this application is dead. But we’re still working with the district for it to be included for water and sewer.”

To annex or not
The district board’s discussion of whether this property was capable of being annexed into Mt. Crested Butte having been previously denied by the town became a sticking point for commissioners, and Mason worked to make the district’s process more clear to everyone.

Dawson argued that district member Nicholas Kempin, who also sits on the Mt. Crested Butte Town Council, had been biased in voting against the project and should be recused from future discussions. Kempin recently recused himself from a Town Council discussion regarding the project, but did participate and vote as a district member last week. The Town Council has openly opposed the project, and requested that the district deny its application.

“[Kempin] brought in testimony from his experience outside of the record after the public meeting was closed,” said Dawson. “Based upon that, [Kempin] voted that the district not waive the requirement of annexation… And this issue is going to be addressed at their January meeting.”

Mike Fabbre, district manager with the Water and Sanitation District, attended the commissioners meeting as well. “But I can’t speak for our board members,” he said repeatedly.

Ultimately, commissioners all agreed their hands were tied by the LUR.

“I don’t feel I’m in a position to affirm the extension because I think our LUR is extremely clear,” said commission chairperson Jonathan Houck. “It does not meet the second condition for extension.”

“I am reluctant to deny an extension when there might be a way forward,” said commissioner Liz Smith. But she said she also wasn’t comfortable granting the extension, due to the LUR. Mason expressed a similar opinion.

Commissioners considered tabling the decision again while Watt works with the district to clear up the annexation uncertainty.

However, deputy county attorney Matthew Hoyt advised that the LUR does not allow commissioners to table a decision past the deadline.

Houck addressed Watt before making a motion to deny the extension. “I think you’ve seen that we have tried as a board to be accommodating and flexible to get to this point, and I was hoping that there would be a bigger opportunity based on the outcomes of the Water and San,” said Houck.

The commissioners denied the request unanimously, but Smith spoke before voting.

“I just want to acknowledge that this was a very difficult decision. And I had hoped for a different outcome coming into it,” she said.

“Our willingness and desire to find a path forward was also up against the requirements of us using the LUR,” said Houck. “I think we’ve seen where the chokepoint was, and if that’s something you can resolve then this application can be welcomed back to the desk of the county.”

Watt spoke privately after the denial, saying he believes Town Council opposition and the district decision is politically motivated.” I just want to build a simple subdivision. I am conservative, and it fits the neighborhood. [Town council] just doesn’t want to see it happen,” he said. He believes the project is falling prey to NIMBYs (“Not In My Backyard” activism) who want to continue enjoying the open space views and walking dogs on his LLC’s property.

He said he appreciates the county’s more objective support. “They don’t have any agendas,” he said of the commissioners.
His only recourse now is to reapply if the district changes its language, or to submit an application to the county using wells and septic systems. “It would be a shame, but I may be forced to do it.”