Photo: Pagosa architect Brad Ash presents on behalf of Montrose-based Arena Labs LLC at the October 28 Pagosa Springs Planning Commission ‘Sketch Plan’ hearing, as commissioners Julie Gurule and Chad Hodges listen.
I noted yesterday in Part Three, that I was surprised on Tuesday, October 28, by a unanimous approval from four Planning Commission members — Chris Pitcher, Julie Gurule, Chad Hodges and Brian Reid — of the Pagosa West “Sketch Plan That Wasn’t a Sketch Plan”.
All the citizen testimony at the scheduled public hearing had been in opposition to the approval.
As in, “all”.
One of the opposition arguments brought up during citizen testimony concerned a required notarized letter, specifically mentioned in the Town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) as a necessary part of any Major Subdivision application, when the applicant does not own the property under consideration.
That is the case with the Pagosa West Major Subdivision application. The property is owned by Kisco LLC. But the Major Subdivision application was submitted, last spring, by Montrose-based Arena Labs LLC.
The application packet presented to the Planning Commission for consideration, last spring, did not include the required notarized letter from the property owner. The absence of this required letter had been noted by at least a couple of local taxpayers months prior to Tuesday’s approval hearing.
The required letter was likewise missing from the application packet shared with the commissioners and the public before the Tuesday evening, and that absence was noted once again by a couple of the citizens who testified against the approval that evening.
So some of us were surprised when, near the end of the meeting, Community Development Director James Dickhoff stood up in the midst of a discussion about this missing letter, waved a sheet of paper and announced that the Planning Department did in fact have a notarized letter from the property owner, as required by the LUDC.
When a member of the audience asked to see the letter, Mr. Dickhoff immediately handed the paper to her for her examination.
Here is the notarized letter Mr. Dickhoff shared. You can click the image for a larger version.
This photo of the letter was provided to the Daily Post by local activist Rachel Suh, who had questioned the legality of the public hearing earlier in the Tuesday meeting.
As we see, the letter — which, according to the LUDC, was legally required to be included in the original Major Subdivision application — is dated October 28, 2025. The day as the public hearing.
Of course, this letter had not been included in the meeting packet that had been provided to the Planning Commission — and to the general public — last week. Because it had not existed last week.
Ms. Suh went home from the (disappointing?) meeting and composed a letter addressed to each Planning Commission member and to the Town attorney, expressing her concerns that the October 28 public hearing should never have been scheduled or held, and that the sudden presentation of the notarized letter at the end of a public meeting, in response to public questioning, constituted “weaponization” of the public comment process.
Her letter begins:
Dear Commissioner,
I am submitting this correspondence to each individual member of the Planning Commission and to the Town Attorney, at the request of a Commissioner who sought clarification of my statements that the Planning Commission’s vote regarding Pagosa West on October 28, 2025, is procedurally invalid.
This correspondence documents multiple procedural and constitutional defects in that hearing, including the abuse of public participation through the weaponization of citizens’ comments and the introduction of new evidence that was then used to justify decision-making during public comment.
Her letter also states:
Accordingly:
• The Pagosa West Sketch Plan application was never legally complete;
• The October 28 hearing was improperly convened and void ab initio; and
• Reliance on the resulting recommendation exposes the Town to judicial reversal under Rule 106(a)(4) and potential TABOR violations if public funds or grants are expended based on the invalid action.
7. Requested Action
I respectfully request that:
• The Town Attorney issue a written legal opinion acknowledging that the October 28, 2025 hearing was procedurally invalid and that its outcomes are void;
• The Town suspend all processing of the Pagosa West application pending lawful resubmittal and renotice; and
• This correspondence be entered into the official record to preserve accuracy and transparency.
You can download Ms. Suh’s full letter, here.
I’ve stated previously in this editorial series that the Town government has a vested interest in seeing the Pagosa West subdivision developed.
This is unfortunate. When a government has a bias towards development, things can go badly for the taxpayers.
The Town’s vested interest relates, in part, to a $2 million grant awarded to the Town, specifically connected to some “workforce housing” proposed at Pagosa West. That grant was applied for, by the Town staff, well before the Major Subdivision Sketch Plan hearing in April. In other words, the Town staff had engaged with a private developer and agreed to provide them with $2 million in taxpayer funding, well before the subdivision was approved under the LUDC rules.
Additionally, the Town staff has a vested interest in completing two public projects — a ‘secondary road system’ and a ‘Town to Lakes trail system’ — and had engaged (eagerly?) with a private developer who was agreeable to move these two municipal projects forward as part of their proposed subdivision.
As noted yesterday, in Part Three, the Tuesday public hearing on the Pagosa West project had begun with Planning Commission member Mark Weiler announcing that he was recusing himself from the meeting. Typically, a recusal occurs when a board member has a conflict of interest.
But what should we say about a Town Planning Department that has a conflict of interest? Should the department recuse itself?
Read Part Five… tomorrow…