Property rights within the incorporated Town of Pagosa Springs are legally subject to the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), which defines its own raisons d’être — its reasons for regulating, for example, new subdivisions such as the proposed River Rock Estates subdivision. While I was still serving on the Town Planning Commission, I had requested Town Planning Director James Dickhoff to address the following LUDC purposes at a May 26 Planning Commission meeting:
Encouraging new subdivision developments to relate to the Town’s historic development pattern.
Promoting compact, well-defined, sustainable neighborhoods that enhance the Town’s character and are compatible with adjoining lands.
Creating livable neighborhoods that foster a sense of community and reduce dependency on private vehicles.
Encouraging the proper arrangement of streets in relation to the Access Control Plan and to existing or planned streets and ensuring streets facilitate safe, efficient, and pleasant walking, biking and driving.
As far as I could tell, River Rock Estates — a planned enclave for millionaires — utterly failed to align with these requirements. That is, it failed to align with the stated reasons why we have a Land Use and Development Code in the first place.
At that May 26 Town Planning Commission meeting, I was not satisfied by Mr. Dickhoff’s responses, and I voted not to recommend the River Rock Estates Final subdivision plan as presented, while four of my fellow commissioners voted “Yes” on the proposed plan. The final decision would be in the hands of Town Council; we were merely making a recommendation.
I did more than vote “No”, however. I was so disturbed by the Planning Commission vote, that I wrote a lengthy affidavit addressed to the Town Council explaining my belief that the Planning Commission, prompted by the Planning Director, had violated the LUDC — and I presented my evidence of that belief. You can download that affidavit here.
That’s the kind of letter that can get you kicked right off the Town Planning Commission, apparently.
Prior to submitting my letter, I contacted the Town staff to see if our municipal government had a “whistle blower policy.” Some government entities, in an effort to fight internal corruption, adopt a policy to protect employees from retribution when the employee reports apparent illegal or immoral or unethical actions by fellow employees or elected officials. I was told that the Town of Pagosa Springs has no such policy. So I submitted my affidavit, without expecting any protection.
Corruption is a temporal process. It doesn’t necessarily happen suddenly; it can sometimes develop over time.
When Planning Director James Dickhoff presented a subdivision ‘Sketch Plan’ for River Rock Estates to the Planning Commission two months earlier, on March 31, the plan showed one, and only one, street — a private, gated street. The Commissioners protested the idea of a gate, but were less concerned about the solitary, private street. I asked Director Dickhoff about a certain LUDC requirement, consisting of one simple sentence:
7.4.1. STREETS – All street rights-of-way shall be dedicated to the public.
Director Dickhoff replied, in a halting manner:
“I think… um… Well, I think… um… there are certainly some instances, and there’s going to be a number of instances… I think we have… I’ll have to research that a little more… I realize that [regulation] is in there, but there’s also some language, I think, which… some of it says, ‘to the association or to the public.’ Or to the Town, rather, as far as dedication.
“As far as dedicating it to the Town, that requires the Town to maintain that public right-of-way or that street, in perpetuity, versus an association taking over that maintenance. So, internally, we discussed, is it in the Town’s best interests to take on that maintenance obligation?”
I responded, “Well, that’s an interesting question. Except that we have something very clear in our subdivision requirements. ‘All street rights-of-way shall be dedicated to the public.’ If that’s our law, why are we even talking about a gated community? A gated community sounds like something that should be out in the [unincorporated] county — not within our town, where we have a law that all streets shall be dedicated to the public.”
At that point, Planning Commission chair Peter Adams redirected the conversation, and the commission never had a full discussion about Section 7.4.1. At the conclusion of the hearing, a majority of the commissioners approved the Sketch Plan with a single private road, but urged the elimination of any “gates”.
There’s no doubt that street and highway maintenance are ongoing expenses. Our our entire nation is struggling with that inconvenient fact. Building maintenance is yet another expense. Gas and oil pipelines, power distribution networks, communications infrastructure, dams and water infrastructure… all the structures and technology that define modern American life… it’s all subject to corruption, over time.
“…So, internally, we discussed, is it in the Town’s best interests to take on that maintenance obligation?”
My impression from the March 31 meeting was that Planning Director Dickhoff and some other (unidentified) person or persons had “internally” decided that Section 7.4.1 was too expensive to enforce, and that, therefore, one solution to the Town’s ongoing street maintenance issues was to allow new subdivision streets to be closed to public traffic… in violation of Section 7.4.1.
That is to say, the Town Planning Department had apparently put itself, and its opinions about the cost of street maintenance, above the adopted laws of the Town.
How very awkward. When public servants put their opinions above the law.