In late March, Jack Turner of Durango filed an ethics complaint against La Plata County planning commissioners Jean Walter and George Hepner after their comments during a Jan. 12 sketch plan hearing to consider the Village Camp luxury RV park proposed for the Animas Valley. Walter and Hepner dissented in a 3-2 vote to approve the sketch plan.
But Turner’s complaint is without merit.
His scrutiny will be more helpful, productive and needed later in the detailed review process for the RV park proposal.
As reported in The Durango Herald on March 30, Turner, two-time candidate for county commissioner and two-time applicant to the Planning Commission, submitted an eight-page ethics complaint to the Board of County Commissioners, alleging Walter and Hepner disregarded the land-use code, violated the county code of ethics and conduct, and violated their responsibility and duty as planning commissioners.
Walter and Hepner “voted to deny sketch plan approval citing extraneous personal concerns that had no bearing on the project’s compliance with the Land Use Code at the sketch plan phase,” Turner told the BoCC.
Strong words, especially toward volunteers who possess professional competencies and were trained to read code.
Before we go forward, we must first go backward. A sketch plan is just that. It’s the equivalent of a large paper napkin that a person would draw on in a bar or restaurant. It’s conceptual without details. A rough draft.
It’s also voluntary. Scott Roberts, CEO of Roberts Resorts and the developer of the proposed luxury RV park is in no way required to submit a sketch plan. Chances are, Roberts expected blowback from Animas Valley neighbors, so why not get a plan out to the public sooner rather than later before he spends tens of thousands of dollars – or more – in doing the diligence to finalize his application?
Although planning commissioners cast votes, the outcome doesn’t really matter. The developer could still submit an application even if every person on the board had voted “no” and told Roberts to high-tail it out of town in the RV he rode in on.
The sketch plan vote gauges how commissioners feel about the project presented at that point in time. Our interpretation of Walter and Hepner’s “no” votes were that Roberts had better bring it. He’d better write a strong application that addresses noise, traffic and wildlife impacts of the project.
Because neighbors aren’t crazy about a 36.6-acre development with 306 RV stalls, 49 of which would be filled with prefabricated “adventure cabins” on Trimble Lane (County Road 252), the site of the former gravel pit.
“I believe that it is our responsibility, partly, to think about individuals who don’t have a voice, and that’s the elk and the deer,” Walter said on Jan. 12.
Roberts’ broad sketch plan called for a broad response. From Walter and Hepner, it was “no.”
In interviews with the Herald, Walter and Hepner defended their stances. Walter cited the intro of the land-use code, with one goal to “protect and respect the county’s most valued assets, such as its natural beauty and landscape, rural lands and viability of agricultural production; and mitigate the adverse impacts of new development on existing residents.”
Hepner leaned in to the developer’s failure to adequately mention or mitigate adverse impacts voiced by neighbors at a December meeting.
These are fair responses. Neither misstepped or were out of line in their reasoning.
As – or maybe, if – the RV park application moves ahead, this project will be examined closely.
Remember, the proposed RV park would be in an area zoned general commercial. Zone districts identify certain uses by right, which don’t require a land-use permit, and other uses by special permit, which this RV park plan does.
A special use requires a minor land-use permit, with one hearing with the planning commission to come. An RV park with 306 stalls sounds more major than minor. Here lies previous confusion – a minor land-use permit and its steps are only procedural.
Because of the scale of the RV park plan, it must meet criteria and standards as if it were a major land-use project. Think engineering details around water, traffic, roads and more to be meticulously reviewed. Roberts has a lot of work ahead.
We welcome Turner’s analysis and inspection later in the process. Let’s save inquiry for the actual application, not for the planning commissioners, who only voiced concerns for what they see as suitable – or unsuitable – for the Animas Valley.
