Photo: Community Development Director James Dickhoff and Town Planner Owen O’Dell present their opinions to the Town Planning Commission during the October 28 ‘Sketch Plan’ public hearing for the proposed Pagosa West subdivision, as Commission member Brian Reid makes written notes.
I didn’t envy the position of the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 28, faced with a decision about a Major Subdivision Sketch Plan application that was almost entirely lacking in information, and which was missing a required permission letter in the application packet.
And facing a crowd of 35 people all apparently opposed to the subdivision as currently proposed.
Due to the attendance at the hearing, a few people were accommodated downstairs in the “overflow seating.” Additionally, another 22 households attended via Zoom.
So nearly 60 people witnessed the Planning Commission make a poor decision regarding the proposed Pagosa West subdivision.
And nearly 60 people witnessed a rather awkward moment that took place about 2 1/2 hours into the public hearing, after the Planning Commissioners had listened carefully to opinions from the Town staff, from the developers’ representative, and from opponents of the current project. (As mentioned previously, no one from the public spoke in favor of the project, as presented.)
The awkward moment came shortly after it was revealed, by an interaction between Community Development Director James Dickhoff and local activist Rachel Suh, that a notarized letter authorizing Arena Labs LLC to apply for a Major Subdivision — an important document required to be included with the application last winter — was dated October 28, 2025. The very date of this public hearing.
When it appeared that the commissioners had no more questions of staff or presenter Brad Ash, we heard Commission Chair Chris Pitcher ask for a motion.
That motion could have been a motion to deny the application, based on a lack of required information.
Or the motion could have been a motion to approve the Sketch as presented.
Or the motion could have been to continue the hearing to a future date, to allow the developer to present an improved Sketch Plan — as was done previously, back in April, regarding an unacceptable Pagosa West Sketch Plan presented to the Planning Commission.
Commission Chair Chris Pitcher:
“I do appreciate the applicant’s answer, that a lot of these questions aren’t answered at this stage, but they will have clearer answers — whether we like them or not — further down in the process.”
He paused, waiting for one of his fellow commissioners to make a motion.
“Well, I will entertain a motion, unless we need more discussion.”
30 seconds of awkward silence from the Commission. It’s funny how long 30 seconds of silence can seem, when a roomful of people is waiting for a resolution.
Finally, Commissioner Chad Hodges spoke.
“So… maybe we should entertain some more discussion.” (Uncomfortable laughter.)
“I think that’s fair. This is a very important decision. Nobody has made a motion in any direction.
“And I do think that this does align with… for the most part… well, there are 17 or 18 conditions included that need to be satisfied… it doesn’t list all of them… before we go forward. And then we have the public testimony [to consider].
“Maybe we should have some more discussion?”
I served for a couple of years on the Town Planning Commission, and came to understand the irregularities that occasionally occurred during planning and approval processes. In some cases, developers were obliged to make changes in their plans that were not specifically required by the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC). In other cases, developers were allowed to skip required steps, or develop in a manner not specifically allowed by the LUDC.
But prior to serving on the Town Planning Commission, I had been writing editorials in the Daily Post about political activities in my hometown, for almost 20 years.
At the turn of the 21st century, Pagosa Springs was coming out of a surprising growth spurt — at one point, growing its population by around 7% per year, a nearly unheard-of growth rate even in Colorado. If that rate had continued, Pagosa would have been on track to double its population within the next 15 years.
And the out-of-town developers were lining up to subdivide various ranches close to, or adjacent to, downtown. Major subdivisions.
Blue Sky Village. Pradera Point. Aspen Village. Harman Park. Mountain Crossing. Reservoir River Ranch.
Plans for these large new subdivisions were submitted to the Town Planning Commission, and all of them were approved, after the plans were appropriately tweaked.
Then 2008 arrived with the Great Recession, and the housing market in Pagosa collapsed, with property values falling by around 30%. The out-of-town subdivision developers packed up and left. But two subdivision projects spearheaded by local developers continued to move ahead.
Aspen Village, and Harman Park.
Two subdivisions that promised a mixed-use “live, work, play” design.
20 years after their approvals, the residential parts of Aspen Village and Harman Park are still mostly vacant. The “live” and “play” never arrived. Only the “work” parts took off in a somewhat meaningful way.
Even in the historical core of downtown Pagosa, several key parcels have been sitting vacant for 20-30 years, with no sign of development.
This is no doubt stressful on the Town’s “Community Development” department. The staff there are hired to oversee “Development”… and when no “Development” is happening, it can easily seem like you’re spinning your wheels. Or so I imagine.
The larger community, meanwhile, has the opposite feeling about “Development”. We would prefer to first allow all the hundreds and hundreds of vacant lots in all our existing subdivisions to fill in, before we cut down more and more trees to create more and more vacant parcels…
…that will sit vacant for 50 years.
But that wasn’t my main issue with what happened on Tuesday evening. I understand that property owners have a legal right to develop their property, so long as they adhere to the community’s established regulations. Within the town limits, those regulations are known as the Land Use and Development Code, the LUDC, which states:
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.
We note the phrase, “in accordance with all of the applicable regulations.” If I were a court of law, I would interpret “all” as meaning “all.” But we know from experience that the Planning Commission and Town staff do not always subscribe to that interpretation…