ESSAY: Issues Hover Around Proposed Terry Robinson Road Helipad, Part One

A few weeks ago, Pagosa Daily Post editor Bill Hudson connected me with a group of Terry Robinson Road neighbors who were looking for a writer to represent their deepening conflict with a nearby resident (Baudouin d’Aumeries), who wants to build a helipad on his property in Echo Creek Valley, just east of Hwy 84.

After reading the background material (July 26 Open Letter posting and September 5 Open Letter posting), I have to admit, I was curious but not committed.

After all, I live in the Aspen Springs community, and trust me, we have our own issues. Why should I be affected by a dispute between neighbors 30 minutes away from my own home? What difference would the outcome of this disagreement make to my life if one or the other side prevailed?

Why would I care what happens there?

Yet, last Wednesday I decided to make the trek to Echo Creek Valley and meet with some of the Terry Robinson Road property owners who were upset by the proposed project and the process.

As soon as I got just a few miles onto Terry Robinson Road, I was struck by the truly breathtaking beauty of the valley, and once I got a bit higher, the view was stunning. I’m a transplant from Michigan, and even though I’ve lived in this community for more than a decade, I’m continually awed and mesmerized by the scenic vistas. Few other places in the world could top this view.

I was starting to understand the motives that compelled most of these property owners to build their homes here. For all the rational, reasonable arguments on one side of this issue or the other, the connection to this place runs deep. I realized how the emotional impact of disturbing what has been in existence for thousands of years — not yet deeply scarred by human intervention — could ignite conflict.

Just a few minutes talking to the neighbors, I knew I wasn’t wrong. These people were intensely passionate about their cause. Some had lived in this neighborhood for 30 years, and were armed with well documented information about how consistent use of a helipad would adversely affect their lives, their community, and the valley’s natural environment.

I will share some of those comments in Part Two.

I’m a sucker for a good cause and a great story. This issue seemed to have both. I was beginning to recognize why I might care.

Quite honestly, some of the things reported that day baffled me. Nearly everyone who has ever heard a helicopter even miles above ground could comprehend the negative impact the noise itself would have on a community—both human and wildlife. Yet, how and why was the original permit recommended for approval? (Read July 26 staff report from Archuleta County Development Services Director, Pamela Flowers.)

What is it about the County’s review criteria and necessary findings that would rubber stamp a project like this?

It seems like the group opposed to the project have adequately demonstrated that the noise alone may be in violation of Archuleta County Ordinance 22-2019, which outlines in detail the maximum permissible noise levels within certain zoned areas. Yet, how can one really test the decibel level until after it’s installed, especially in a valley that actually amplifies sound, as its name implies? If the project were to proceed, who would be testing it on a regular basis to make sure noise level is within “maximum permissible levels”? And, what happens if d’Aumeries violates that maximum? I’m sure installing a heliport or helipad requires a hefty investment. Once done, it’s almost impossible to take it back.

And then there’s the Archuleta County Planning Commissions’ Land Use and Zoning Regulations, specifically 3.1.5.8c, which discusses do’s and don’ts affecting an Airport Overlay District (AO). The subpoint #8 reads: “Compliance with the provisions of an AO District is not required for private noncommercial landing strips and heliports provided that they meet the following provisions and requirements:…”

Then it lists a bunch of requirements for the private use of something like a helicopter.

The residents assert that the project is in direct violation to this statement: “No residential dwelling units shall be located within one half mile of either end of any runway.” True, looking at a map, that seems to be a direct violation.

Yet, I guess there is a question about whether d’Aumeries is building a heliport or a helipad. What’s the difference, you might ask? (I did.) A quick Google search basically confirms what you might guess. “A heliport is a fixed base operation that provides a range of services, including customs, maintenance, fuel bunkering and fire suppression. A helipad, on the other hand, is simply a designated area where a helicopter can land safely.” (Bayanat Engineering, Helipads and heliports)

So, the statute doesn’t specifically state regulations concerning a helipad. Efforts are underway, by concerned neighbors, to get the word “helipad” added. If that happens, then the project can legally be blocked. Until then, apparently those in public accountability positions can’t really do much to deny approval of the permit.

Really? In spite of the surrounding community’s very strenuous objections? In spite of possible irreversible harm that even one helicopter flying in and out of the valley might cause to the natural landscape and wildlife?

I have to be honest. Reading through the minutiae of legalese makes my eyes glaze over. Definitely not my strong suit. But I get it that we live in a society governed by rules… mostly because I don’t think we humans know how to live amongst each other peacefully and respectfully. Some people actually might think that the “American Way” is basically you get to do whatever you want, irrespective of someone else’s needs or choices — especially if you have money, influence or power.

When will we ever learn?

But maybe there was something I wasn’t quite getting, such as the reasons behind why D’Aumeries, a pilot who probably spent a great deal of time and investment in the aviation industry, wanted and needed to fly his helicopter to his personal residence.

I asked the group, and many admitted that they didn’t really know. There was talk about his contributing to the search and rescue efforts of the community. Possibly a base for helping to combat forest fires — certainly a huge concern for this area.

One person suggested that he may have plans to run a business from that location — helicopter rides for tourists or commuter services for those who needed to travel to Durango or Albuquerque faster than a car could take them.

I checked into that.  d’Aumeries does have a license for “Helipagosa LLC.” There’s even a website domain I’m assuming he acquired, named helipagosa.com — right now a WordPress site that is ‘coming soon’.

Don’t get me wrong. Mr. d’Aumeries has every right to register for the business license and the website domain. I’m sure many would pay for the services he could provide. But from his home? Why not from Stevens Field, which has the infrastructure to handle the traffic on land and in the air? That’s the point the upper Terry Robinson Road residents are making. Hard to argue with that, for sure.

I’d like to talk with d’Aumeries as this issue unfolds. He has his point of view, and I for one don’t like coming to certain conclusions until I hear both sides. Certainly, I would never advocate targeting him in any way. Apparently nowadays, anything you can find out about someone on the internet or through social media is fair game. But now as a member of this community, he has a place here.

As you might be able to tell, this dispute has sucked me in. There are much deeper issues at stake than what looks on the surface to be an emotionally intense disagreement amongst neighbors.

For me it comes down to this: what really are we as a community?   How do we define who and what we collectively want to be?

How much should our local laws dictate what should and shouldn’t be allowed, perhaps in direct violation of someone’s individual preferences and even personal rights?

We live in the very lap of astounding beauty and magnificence, constantly reminded of nature’s way. Should we do everything we can to protect that or should man’s way of continual development and progress hold sway? Where is that line?

And when disagreements come up — as certainly they will — what will determine how we can resolve those differences? I’d like to believe that respect for each other and peaceful resolution would prevail. Hard to still stand by that admittedly naive ideal in the face of the insidious infection of dissension and intentional attack that has taken hold of the nation right now, let alone our own community.

It’s hard to make someone want to care, much less get involved in an issue that doesn’t directly impact you. I’m not exactly writing to convince you why you should. You might be up to your eyeballs already in issues that legitimately take your time and attention.

But if you can, at least, weigh in. Where do you stand on these deeper community issues? If or when this one issue is resolved (most likely ratcheting up the emotions and/or actions of the side that “loses”), is it worth pursuing, as a community, these underlying questions?

Should the discussion continue?

How much are we willing to care?

Read Part Two…

Kim Elzinga

Kim Elzinga is a life-long lover of literature and the craft of connecting through the written word. A keen observer of human behavior, Kim has delved into both the mystical and practical sides of energy medicine, using her training in Reiki and neo-shamanic techniques to offer alternatives.