On May 13, 2014, about 40 Amish farmers gathered at a building site in Ohio to raise a massive barn. While the men — the sons and fathers — assembled the barn, the sisters and mothers worked in tandem to prepare a delicious lunch and dinner for everyone to share. The barn-raising took about 10 hours. Here’s a YouTube video that compresses that 10-hour event into 3 minutes:
This kind of thing doesn’t happen in Pagosa Springs. At least, not often. More likely, when a property owner plans to build a small house, and needs a variance from the County’s Land Use Regulations, neighbors will show up to try and prevent the new home from being built.
On July 7, 2018, Architect Courtney King had carefully explained to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners why her clients, Liz and Roger Horton, would not be able to build an 800-square-foot home, on the parcel they own at 33 Debonaire Court, without two variances from the County’s Land Use Regulations. The first variance — a height variance — would allow them to build a two-story house. Ms. King had presented the commissioners with a dozen photographs of nearby homes that were similarly two-stories high.
The second variance would allow the home to encroach 10 feet into the County’s normal 25-foot front setback, and 7 feet into the County’s normal 15-foot rear setback.
This plan had already been approved by the Pagosa Lakes Property Ownrs Association (PLPOA) Environmental Control Committee (ECC), a board that is somewhat notorious for its strict enforcement of PLPOA covenants and guidelines. Karen Katsos, PLPOA Community Standards Manager, reported the ECC’s reasoning:
“This is a privately owned/legally platted building R-1-P lot. The owners have a right to build a single family dwelling. There are specific standards/ requirements that the PLPOA has established that must be met. The building envelope is not large enough to meet the 800 square foot minimum living space requirement. In addition, the garage requirement creates a further hardship. The square footage and garage requirement cannot be met without a variance.”
This is a truthful statement, and following architect Courtney King’s presentation, I would think it was clear to everyone in the room that, without the BOCC’s approval of two variances, owners Liz and Roger Horton would be deprived of their “right to build a single family home” on the parcel they owned.
17 of the Horton’s neighbors signed a petition, however, urging the BOCC to reject the variance requests. Two of the neighbors, Gwen and Tim Taylor, took the opportunity to address the commissioners directly, from the podium, and shared poster-sized photographs, showing how the proposed small home would impact their (distant) view of Lake Pagosa, and — they claimed — their property values.
Tim Taylor made a special effort to reference a section of the County’s Land Use Regulations. He reminded the commissioners that all five of the following standards must be found to exist, before the BOCC may grant a variance to a property owner, according to Section 2.4.3.2(1) of the Land Use Regulations:
a. Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the provisions of these Regulations are strictly enforced.
b. Circumstances creating the hardship were created subsequently through no fault of the appellant.
c. That the property for which a variance is requested possesses exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition which does not occur generally in other property in the same zoning or overlay district.
d. That the variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air and open space in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood.
e. The variance, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and purpose of these Regulations or the Community Plan.
We’re not Amish, here in Pagosa Springs. We don’t show up to help our neighbor build their home, or their barn. Quite the contrary.
The BOCC, acting as the Board of Adjustment, listened to the testimony, pro and con, and then proceeded to deny the Hortons their right to build a single family dwelling, by refusing to grant the two variances. In making the motion to deny the height variance, Commissioner Michael Whiting pointed out, accurately, that the hardship conditions preventing the Hortons from meeting the language of the Land Use Regulations — namely, the small size of the lot — existed prior to their purchase of the property. So, obviously, Standard (b)…
Circumstances creating the hardship were created subsequently through no fault of the appellant.
…could not be met. In other words, the Hortons had bought a parcel purposely created for a residential home, that could not be used for a residential home under County law, when County law did not fully align with PLPOA covenants. According to Commissioner Whiting, the Hortons knew about the problem, and bought the parcel anyway.
The problem is not a faulty County law, we were told. The problem was that the Hortons should have known about the misalignment of the County’s Land Use Regulations. You can’t build a small house in Pagosa Lakes.
We understand Greed and Selfishness. We all suffer from these afflictions, to one degree or another.
We also understand the Rule of Law, and — much less perfectly — the concepts of Justice and Freedom. The Archuleta County Land Use Regulations and the Pagosa Lakes subdivision covenants and restrictions were presumably built around these concepts, with the idea that we ought to have the freedom to benefit from our own private property, but only within certain limits.
As America grew in affluence following World War II, land use regulations became more and more strict. By the time Ralph Eaton and his fellow investors began building the 21-square-mile development now known as Pagosa Lakes, we were setting limits on how small a home could be, how tall it could be, how much of the parcel it could occupy, how tall the fence could be, what color the house could be painted, and whether a clothesline could appear on the property. We’d begun to require garages, and landscaping, and insulation, and a certain amount of space between buildings.
On the face of it, these regulations were intended to make neighborhoods “more attractive” and to preserve a certain type of “property value.” The regulations probably seemed quite sensible, in 1970, when the County approved the Pagosa Lakes subdivision plans. We didn’t want small houses in our neighborhoods.
After all, we’re not Amish. In modern America, a house is not a home; it’s a real estate investment. And a small house, next door, might negatively affect our investment.
To many people, this approach may still seem sensible. This approach sees each parcel as its own little kingdom, with only a tenuous connection to the entire community. To many 21st century residents of Archuleta County, a “community” is a place where shopping opportunities exist, and for some, where our jobs are located.
A community where people love and support one another? Where we might show up to help our neighbor raise a barn?
That’s not how our laws define Archuleta County.