Image: The ‘Sketch Plan’ map approved by the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, almost totally lacking in the information required by the Town’s Land Use and Development Code.
The public hearing for the proposed Pagosa West subdivision Sketch Plan began at about 5:30pm. Three hours later, I had a chance to tell the Planning Commission what I thought of their decision.
As mentioned in Part Five of this editorial series, I previously served on the Town Planning Commission, and prior to that, spent about 20 researching and writing about local political issues — such as planning, and subdivision development — for the Pagosa Daily Post.
As part of that research, and as part of my Planning Commission service, I spent some time with the Town’s Land Use and Development Code — the LUDC — which you can review online at this website. These regulations have been adopted to protect the health, safety and welfare of Pagosa Springs residents and visitors, while simultaneously protecting private property rights. At least, that’s the theory.
Here’s a short section from the LUDC, with theoretically guides all decisions by the Town Council and the Town Planning Commission:
Sec. 1.2.4. – Grammatical Interpretation.
For the purposes of this Code:
- Any gender includes the other gender.
- Any singular word shall include the plural and vice versa.
- Words used in the past or present tense include the future.
- Shall is mandatory; may is permissive.
We will make note of item (4), which — in my humble opinion — makes it clear that instructions within the LUDC delineated by the word “shall” are mandatory.
Here is another statement from the LUDC, in Article 1, which makes use of the word, “shall“:
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.
And here’s another statement from the LUDC, in Article 13, which makes use of the words “shall“…
Sketch plan minimum requirements
(a) At minimum, maps shall include the following information:
The LUDC then lists 16 requirements that shall be included on a Major Subdivision Sketch Plan map.
In my experience, every previous Sketch Plan presented to, and approved by, the Town Planning Commission made a concerted effort to meet all 16 of those LUDC requirements.
Here’s an example of a Sketch Plan map approved by the Town Planning Commission in 2022, for the proposed “Pagosa Vista” subdivision near the Elementary School.
The numbers — “1”, “2” and “3” — indicate the “phases” proposed for the development, which is one of the 16 requirements that shall be met by a Sketch Plan map.
We also see the subdivision streets indicated — again meeting the “shall” requirements.
We see the acreage of each neighborhood. We see proposed building footprints. We see the location of the community park. These are all requirements of the Sketch Plan map.
The Planning Commission and the general public were able to form a pretty clear understanding of the concept being proposed, and could consider whether the concept justified the next step — a much more expensive step:
The fully engineered Preliminary Plat.
That’s the express purpose of a Sketch Plan, as explained in the LUDC… to show a concept for the entire subdivision, and give the developer assurance that they are on the right track when they begin spending the big bucks on detailed engineering and architecture.
But here is the Sketch Plan map approved last Tuesday by the Town Planning Commission, for the Pagosa West Major Subdivision:
Only “Phase 1” is shown. Only a couple of the streets are shown. Only five building footprints are shown. In fact, of the 16 details that the LUDC requires to be shown on a Sketch Map — that “shall” be shown — many of the required map details are completely ignored or unacceptably vague.
How did Town staff excuse this incomplete submission? “Those details will be provided later, during Preliminary Plat approval.”
But… like…”shall“?
(a) At minimum, maps shall include the following information…
Sometimes the Planning Commission simply looks the other way when regulations are “interpreted” by the Town staff to allow such transgressions to take place.
From the current LUDC:
The provisions of this Land Use Code shall apply to all land, buildings, structures, and uses thereof located within the Town of Pagosa Springs, unless an exemption is provided by the terms of this Land Use Code. The provisions of this Land Use Code are the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare.
We note the word, “shall”. We also note the phrase “minimum requirements”. Presumably, the Planning Commission can make additional requests of the developer, not specifically mentioned within the LUDC, when needed to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the larger community.
From the LUDC:
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 will 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.
In fact, in the case of the Tuesday evening presentations and vote on the Pagosa West application, the Planning Commission and Town staff made it rather clear that they interpreted the phrase “all of the applicable regulations” to mean, “only a select few of the applicable regulations”.
Following the vote to approve the Pagosa West “Sketch Plan That Wasn’t a Sketch Plan”, the opponents of the project packed up and left the meeting. I remained, because I knew that the Commission typically allows public testimony at the conclusion of each meeting. I felt disappointed that the Commission did not choose to “continue” the approval process and allow the developers to submit a complete Sketch Plan, as required by the LUDC.
As it was, the approval of the Sketch Plan included 18 “conditions” that would need to be met in order for the developers to enter the second stage of the approval process, which is the “Preliminary Plat”. One of the conditions actually has nothing to do with the developers themselves. It was a suggestion by Planning Commissioner Brian Reid that the Commission ask the Town Attorney to give an opinion about whether the approval process was void, due to the appearance of the required notarized “statement of authority” on October 28, 2025 — the night of the hearing — instead of at the very beginning of the application process last winter, as was required by the LUDC.
My testimony to the four Commissioners — Chris Pitcher, Julie Gurule, Chad Hodges and Brian Reid — at about 8:30pm:
“I’m very sad that you didn’t table this decision until you got the Town Attorney’s opinion, because I think you missed a lot of things that are in the LUDC… that you were supposed to pay attention to.
“I think this application was not fully legal. The required notarized letter was not part of the original application packet. And I think you made a mistake by not putting off the decision for two weeks [until the next Commission meeting] to allow the developer to come back, after you’ve heard from your attorney.
“I’m sure what you’ve just done is going to get appealed to the Town Council. And if the Town Council confirms your approval, I suspect it will be appealed to District Court. The people who were here tonight really care about our community. They really care about our community, not simply their own properties, but they care about the nature of our community.
“You didn’t have any evidence that this is a good plan. Because it was basically a blank map.
“A blank map.
“You didn’t know where the streets are going to be, nothing about where the parks are going to be, nothing about where anything is going to be, except the proposed workforce housing and the gas station. Two little pieces of it.
“A Sketch Plan is supposed to provide a concept. You were supposed to decide if this is a good concept.
“A blank plan is not a ‘good concept’.
“So I think you’ve made a terrible mistake by approving this. And unfortunately, it’s going to get delayed. It’s going to have to be appealed to the Town Council. And it will be further delayed if it goes to District Court. In which case, you have delayed the process for the developer…
“The developer could have come forward with an actual Sketch Plan for you guys, and given you something real to approve or deny. Given you something real to look at.
“Instead, you’ve approved… nothing. You’ve approved a blank slate…
“Those are just the thoughts of a former Planning Commission member…”