When you’re earning a handsome salary with the Town of Pagosa Springs, you certainly don’t want an appointed volunteer to come along and spoil your fun.
So why not do your best to get that annoying volunteer fired? You know the one — local troublemaker Bill Hudson. That guy.
Over the past decade, Town Planning Director James Dickhoff and I have butted heads occasionally over local land use and planning issues. Mr. Dickhoff’s job is not an easy one; he’s tasked with — among other things — making sure that development projects within the Town boundaries meet the requirements of the 280-page Land Use and Development Code. The LUDC.
You can view the LUDC here.
The LUDC is adopted by — and occasionally amended by — the Town Council, a group of caring elected legislators who may or may not be familiar with municipal land use and planning issues, or with the development business in general. So the Town Council also appoints qualified volunteers to a Town Planning Commission that meets for several hours a month to assist with various land use decisions. One of the Planning Commission’s main tasks is to make sure proposed development projects properly align with all the applicable LUDC requirements, and make recommendations about that alignment, to the Town Council.
From the LUDC:
This Land Use Code is adopted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to implement the Pagosa Springs Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans.
No building or structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, or altered for use, nor shall any land, building, or structure be used or changed, except in accordance with all of the applicable regulations established by this Land Use Code.
No permit or approval may be issued under this Land Use Code unless all structures and uses of land and structures to be authorized by the permit or approval conform to this Land Use Code, regulations promulgated under this Land Use Code, and the terms and conditions of other applicable permits and approvals issued under this Land Use Code. A permit or approval issued in violation of this Land Use Code is void.
Different people can have different interpretations of the same text. When I read the above text, I understand that a development project must be constructed “in accordance with all of the applicable regulations established by” the Town’s LUDC. Others may disagree.
I also take this to mean that “a permit or approval issued in violation of this Land Use Code is void.” In other words, having no legal value. Others may disagree.
Clearly, a Planning Director can make himself pretty unpopular with certain developers if he — in concert with the volunteer Planning Commission — truly requires them to adhere to all of the applicable regulations in a 280-page document. That’s a lot of codes, and some might demand careful thought and consideration. Developers often have their own ideas about the best ways to make a nice profit in the development business, and those ideas sometimes conflict with LUDC requirements.
It’s possible that a Planning Director might occasionally ignore certain codes in a 280-page document — to keep a certain developer happy? And who would know the difference? Does anyone really read that document?
Sometimes — not often, but sometimes — the Town Council, in its wisdom, appoints volunteers to the Planning Commission who are willing to read the LUDC and perhaps even point out that a code requirement… or three or four… had been overlooked by a developer in his proposed plans.
Such a volunteer commissioner would need to be removed… right? We can’t be making our developers unhappy… right?
There’s at least one developer who, at the moment, is not happy with Bill Hudson. Actually, “immensely aggravated” would be a better description. Here’s his recent letter to Town Manager Andrea Phillips, also copied to the Town Council… slightly abridged:
Dear Town Manager and Attorney,
I wanted to start by thanking you all for your time and dedication to the betterment of our Town. I also wanted to express concerns about the conduct of Bill Hudson regarding the proposed River Rock Estates development. As you know, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve the preliminary subdivision plan. We have a short building season in Pagosa Springs and Mr. Hudson’s refusal to accept the Planning Commission’s majority vote has had a detrimental effect on my development schedule. This has cost me both money and an immense amount of aggravation. Mr. Hudson cites in his affidavit to you all that I somehow received special treatment on the Cobblestone Townhomes Development. I find this very insulting and an inaccurate representation.
I also have concerns over Mr. Hudson’s ethics. On January 7, 2020, Mr. Hudson wrote an article in which he refers to my development as a “Growth Ponzi Scheme” (view article here). It seems that he was predisposed to a negative prejudice concerning this development. The code of ethics requires that Mr. Hudson review all development plans with an open minded fairness. It is obvious to me and perhaps yourself that he did not have this thought process when reviewing my development. I see this as a serious breach of the trust that he was given when appointed to the Planning Commission Board…
…Interestingly enough, Mr. Hudson was one of those who caused and circulated the most recent URA petition that is requiring the Town to hold an election on a ballot issue that conflicts with State regulation and opens the Town up to inevitable future lawsuits. Of more concern to me, he will be reviewing any development plans I have on the Springs Partners property and this is again a direct ethical issue.
In my mind, there is a pattern of abuse of powers and ethical violations shown by Mr. Hudson and reflects poorly on each of you as a trustee of town policy.
Sincerely,
Jack Searle
BWD Construction, LLC – Owner
Mr. Searle thoughtfully included a link to a January 2020 Daily Post editorial, “The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part Fourteen” which mentions one of Mr. Searle’s proposed developments, but — contrary to Mr. Searle’s reading of the text — does not describe his project as a Ponzi scheme.
We note that Mr. Searle does not mention, in his letter, the specific land use regulations that he may have neglected to meet with his proposed subdivision plan.
But perhaps Mr. Searle’s letter got some wheels turning at Town Hall?
Town Planning Director James Dickhoff sent out an email yesterday afternoon, concerning a “special meeting” hastily scheduled for today.
Hello Planning Commissioners,
We are scheduling a Special Planning Commission meeting for tomorrow, Thursday, June 11, at 4pm. We will have the council chambers open for those that would like to attend in person and we will provide a zoom meeting link for those that are not comfortable attending in person due to COVID-19.
We have been contacted by a majority of our Planning Commissioners recommending the Planning Commission consider a recommendation for Town Council regarding removing Mr. Hudson from the Commission.
The Special Meeting agenda is being completed and will be noticed before 4pm today.
Thank You,
James Dickhoff, AICP
Planning Department Director
I was not asked if I was available to attend this hastily scheduled meeting, even though I appear to be ‘The Defendant’. I was not informed as to which rules governing commissioner behavior might be discussed at this special meeting, nor provided a list of the “charges” that might be made against me in a public meeting.
I wonder what will happen?
Join in person at Town Hall, 551 Hot Springs Boulevard or by Zoom at: https://zoom.us/j/98891521033
Up to 10 people may meet provided adequate spacing can be maintained. Back-up in-person meeting space will be provided in the Town Hall Conference Room.