The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Both continued to late October
by Katherine Nettles
The Gunnison County Board of Adjustment opened two appeal hearings last week that have challenged the Lower Verzuh major impact project sketch plan approval. Neither appeal got past the issue of whether the appellants have standing to make a case, but the board will reconvene to continue both cases in late October. In both cases the issue of standing will be determined at the continued hearings, and that will determine if either appeal can proceed into deliberations or if they are dismissed.
The board of adjustment (BOA) is responsible for hearing such appeals as the two that have come forward opposing the county commissioners’ approval of the Lower Verzuh application. The BOA is made up of the three county commissioners and two appointed members, Andy Tocke and Drew Brookhart.
The Lower Verzuh application was first considered by the Gunnison County Planning Commission, which failed to approve a recommendation in a stalemate 2-2 vote in early July. County commissioners then remanded it to the planning commission for reconsideration and more thorough findings. The planning commission reconsidered the application in August and recommended its approval with conditions, and county commissioners followed suit, approving the application with conditions in a 2-1 vote.
Within weeks, two appeals of that approval came forward, first by Marc D. Sarnoff on September 1, and then by neighboring homeowner associations Hidden Mine Ranches and East River Ranches on September 2. The BOA has 30 days from receiving an appeal to consider it and must determine if the commissioners’ decision is affirmed, reversed, modified or remanded to an original decision-making body.
The initial BOA meeting was held on Wednesday, September 23. All members were present, as were representatives for the applicant, and the appellants themselves.
The applicants, Bill Lacy and Daniel Dow of Lacy and Dow LLC propose to develop a 450-acre parcel on the east side of Highway 135 near Brush Creek Road for 338 residential lots. The lots would accommodate 433 units, including 179 essential housing units.
The BOA addressed Sarnoff’s appeal first and his motion that the two commissioners, Jonathan Houck and Liz Smith be removed from the appeal process because they had voted in favor of the subdivision’s sketch plan approval. After extensive discussion and legal input, the BOA remained intact with Houck and Smith participating as well as commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels, Tocke and Brookhart.
Next, the BOA discussed whether to allow late submitted materials into the record, and decided unanimously not to allow them. The board then discussed whether Mr. Sarnoff has standing to make an appeal. That was also a complex and in-depth conversation, with Sarnoff stating his water right would be harmed by the development and the increase in traffic would also impact his neighborhood in addition to property values and way of life. The BOA agreed that a sketch plan approval, as an action made by the commissioners, could be appealed. However, they did not definitively agree that Mr. Sarnoff had standing based on his arguments. Brookhart noted that much of his complaint was based on potential or theoretical impacts rather than anything tangible at the current stage of the application.
Board members reviewed that the approval conditions stated that the applicant should “explore transit connectivity to adjacent properties,” and therefore did not require transit and connectivity. They also found that the “injury” to Sarnoff was not yet material unless the plan reached final approval. They requested more information about the water issues, which Tocke found to be “more nuanced.”
“To the degree that there is nuance, it is way over our pay grade,” said Brookhart.
Sarnoff’s arguments regarding his and the proposed subdivision’s water rights were very different from those of the applicants’ attorney, Marcus Lock.
Puckett Daniels suggested that they ask both parties (the appellant and applicant) to submit additional arguments on Sarnoff’s standing to make the appeal specifically regarding the water rights. “That is the one claim that sounds like it would be up for debate,” she said.
After consulting with county attorney Matthew Hoyt, the BOA board agreed to continue the hearing for that purpose to Thursday, October 22 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. They agreed that all materials must be submitted one week before the next meeting.
The BOA started the hearing for the second appeal coming from Hidden Mine Ranches and East River Ranches. The board also grappled with the issue of additional, late-submitted materials the second appellants had requested be admitted to the record for their appeal. They decided in a unanimous vote to deny the acceptance of further information. Having spent more than three hours on the two appeals at that point, the BOA continued the hearing for the second appeal to another date as well, at which point they will consider if that appellant has standing to make their appeal. That hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 21 from 1 to 5 p.m.
