[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6607030,"mediaKeyId","2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900","parentId",2956609,"title","Commission recommends denial of four‑lot Summit Lake subdivision after traffic, access and compliance concerns","audioSeconds",3569,"startMs",3171000,"endMs",6740000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900&start=3171&end=6740","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900/thumbnail_3171000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6607030/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Commission-recommends-denial-of-fourlot-Summit-Lake-subdivision-after-traffic-access-and-compliance-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607030-10065b339ef14e45ae3e46cc3ae70312/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511769&Signature=aXP0lyBML76wsIlYK1oAdFbrrl66ii7QeJys126OxIzUZwV2cgCXV3UEej8Q7C~TdCKepBQC905ld8SdUm3AkoN1GnDWjRTNakgqVOcSTlGtPhDJY4t9wFY-J3BL74LOwyv05pZOV-pE7ro1S~O5p5vlHF4X9Zw2YlSmvCWosSpbM6uNkmOQcyTrgCnPAlnfaIpMsowNbc39f97fBvmA1LPCdSqe8weBE3PPsxAW~lo17I7Jf0qRcqoiA2ZF0o6G2LYShvxXhPhw4BiXELpBK~zA0mhJQ05YzQu8kCxU6p1W7CaJVqz6BAOQwsOaKcyozU17GpIw56WIaPPK0cXPNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montezuma County","date","2025-04-11T04:10:12.23Z","article","The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9 voted to recommend denial of a proposed four‑lot moderate subdivision and rezoning application associated with property in the Summit Lake East area (application materials list an applicant name in the packet; public record and commenters referenced the Ellis Lewis Revocable Trust).

After extended public comment and discussion, the commission approved a motion to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioners cited concerns raised in the hearing record about road access, traffic safety at the intersection of State Highway 184 and County Road 37, and multiple unresolved neighborhood objections. The motion to deny referenced specific decision criteria in the county land use code and county traffic/access standards.

CDOT submitted a referral letter to the county (Region 5), and staff read portions of that letter into the record. In the letter CDOT stated that “the existing development at the intersection of State Highway 184 and County Road 37 warrants auxiliary lanes and no further land use approvals should be issued by Montezuma County” until safety improvements are in place. The commission’s discussion treated CDOT’s referral and prior traffic assessments as significant factors in its recommendation.

Neighbors spoke for hours at the hearing. Several residents said the three local “P” roads (P1, P2 and P3) that provide access to Summit Lake East are narrow, in poor condition and—by court ruling—do not provide the kind of public, county‑maintained access CDOT and the county normally expect for subdivisions. Ray Boswell, an adjacent resident, told the commission that previous court findings had determined Road P1 is a private road and that additional development would impose a traffic and safety burden on local residents. Other commenters raised concerns about potential floodplain locations for proposed lots, decreased property values and repeated disputes over whether the property was already out of compliance with county code.

Applicant and supporters disputed some staff assertions about code violations for existing structures. Planning staff and the applicant discussed prior county approvals and variances; staff said outstanding compliance issues have been addressed or are being resolved, while the applicant said prior structures were grandfathered as lawful nonconforming uses and that an earlier BOCC decision approved certain locations. The commission indicated the unresolved access and traffic safety issues, and the numerous neighbor objections, outweighed arguments in favor of subdivision at this time.

The commission’s motion to recommend denial cited decision criteria and concluded the application “would generate significant adverse impacts on other property in the area.” The motion passed with all commissioners present voting in favor of the denial recommendation. The denial will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action; planning staff will provide the BOCC packet including the CDOT referral and public comments.

Votes at a glance: Commissioner Hernandez — Aye (to deny); Commissioner Nygaard — Aye; Commissioner Lynch — Aye; Commissioner Armstrong — Aye; Commissioner Doyle — Aye.

Background/notes: The hearing record includes multiple public commenters, a county attorney opinion referenced by parties, a court ruling referenced in public comment about the private status of Road P1, staff findings regarding water availability (Montezuma Water 2‑inch mainline in the area), and a 2000s‑era history of improvements and ownership disputes in the Summit Lake area. CDOT’s letter is part of the record and was read into the public hearing by staff.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Montezuma County P&Z Meeting April 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial April 9 of a proposed four‑lot moderate subdivision and rezoning for property in the Summit Lake East area, citing traffic safety, access and neighborhood impact concerns and a CDOT referral recommending against further approvals until intersection improvements are in place.","taxTitle","Montezuma County, Colorado","taxId",27581,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607035,"Commission recommends 10‑acre rezoning for horse‑holding site; neighbors raise traffic, containment questions",1581,1499000,3080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900&start=1499&end=3080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900/thumbnail_1499000.jpg","/articles/6607035/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Commission-recommends-10acre-rezoning-for-horseholding-site-neighbors-raise-traffic-containment-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607035-bbc58bf1547a1dd40a1925b3631a7c11/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511769&Signature=gPA4Kl-i1XgA41exWYIBCf-hzZXLz9VzPndnNO3TuG3D5dFdOre4HhvsThBzioGxWCb8broqXL8sHWnmiaP1nKcUOWo6QkaOHGDRTnCf5Mp99tV1KfwT1qVPQk~lJu8ZtWACzyr15ZSNmLzcFmR1Ow-RK-bVnH~h0UOJjBPKzhOWhm~-uY2rokrtH-fb8rvE7LT66g4g-rughgnE-ZYfFwpWrAzSyDqm8Vub9NNYsWrbmLs2sT5ZpLSTEhP8~azXPD8~m9LXlUYcG~T9bczmVx2TMzzd3S-p9gZKZProawJJtnwr1QOeJTiFHdV1--Wlxc66AIAzb~qfHmNtw1H5Mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously April 9 to recommend approval of a 10‑acre single‑lot development and AR‑10 rezoning submitted by the Douglas Family Trust, for property at 10900 Road 20.

Staff told the commission the proposal would create a 10‑acre lot intended to host a holding and training facility for wild horses. The site borders Canyon of the Ancients National Monument and Bureau of Land Management property. Agencies were notified and staff noted access would be from Road 20; Empire Electric provides power and Montezuma Water Company has a 4‑inch main on the east side of Road 20 with capacity for one additional service. Wildfire Adaptive staff recommended a wildfire mitigation plan because a majority of the parcel is pinon‑juniper fuels.

Lori Tunland is listed as the applicant’s agent; a representative of the National Mustang Association of Colorado (NMA) spoke for the nonprofit partner and described planned operations. The NMA representative said the organization intends to use the 10‑acre site as a holding and training facility and that its draft layout estimated a practical maximum holding capacity of “somewhere between 25 and 31” horses on the 10 acres, though she said that number would be refined with professional review: “We put together a rough design based on what we could hold for 10 acres and we're thinking somewhere between 25 and 31 as a maximum,” the representative said. She added the organization has not previously operated a holding facility and invited outside inspection: “We would welcome a, agency to come in and audit us.”

Neighbors who spoke during public comment raised containment, fencing and traffic concerns. A local neighbor asked whether fencing fully enclosed the property and whether animals could escape onto nearby BLM land. Another commenter asked about peak traffic and whether a traffic analysis would be required for the anticipated movements of horse trailers and potential visitors; the NMA representative said she expected traffic would be minimal in normal operations and that adoptions would be scheduled and screened so visitations would be occasional rather than mass events.

Commissioners asked whether the operation would be commercial; the applicant’s representative said the facility would operate under the nonprofit organization. Staff recommended the proposal meets the land‑use code for a single‑lot development and that public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the zone.

The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendation includes standard conditions for access permits (driveway permit from Road and Bridge if a new driveway is required) and noted wildfire mitigation recommendations. The BOCC will consider the commission’s recommendation at a later meeting.

Votes at a glance: Commissioner Hernandez — Aye; Commissioner Nygaard — Aye; Commissioner Lynch — Aye; Commissioner Armstrong — Aye; Commissioner Doyle — Aye.

Background: The parcel borders federal lands and sits in an area where staff recommended wildfire mitigation and a waiver from county weed management; no irrigation water shares were reported.

","The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9 voted unanimously to recommend approval of a 10‑acre single‑lot subdivision and AR‑10 rezoning for a proposed wild‑horse holding and training facility at 10900 Road 20.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607040,"Planning commission backs 4‑lot subdivision south of Highway 160 with road maintenance condition",902,493000,1395000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900&start=493&end=1395","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900/thumbnail_493000.jpg","/articles/6607040/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Planning-commission-backs-4lot-subdivision-south-of-Highway-160-with-road-maintenance-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607040-25c4614c90dccebdfbb4a848a281386e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511769&Signature=KnVwJTpUnFKZjp-kHBV0l8Zf9kTn7uM1OjPl0NTcJV-HiWzNGRRUaHVH5kg9W97x01ADZDXc4zj9KldvqZdqFXNRCa1fUpguwXXbDxBgZMUjO4hD4dkcXPkMU94sSDonZ~-9fBrrtMXBYcG~Cljd8TCJmsQNnsy48pywV-wvb50mSF1fwZ7pwoOeIRxCGgjCbrq-td-CO5ew3XJ6KCXRa~Vq8mzfIAmnAQcFteMd8kVKTqWmXLaOk765vx-i0QH0kh~ox1u2PzV21n2vGZn2ZwYn3r-C5kagncNiW~mSvLajucaG9-9X8lIZ0QJg46RPjHlZzZ5faMr-qCadDFbpdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9 recommended approval of a four‑lot moderate subdivision and rezoning application submitted by Troy Jankowski for a 38.8‑acre property at 30261 Road H, south of Highway 160.

The commission voted 4–1 to approve the proposal, with one commissioner voting no. The motion recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners and included a condition that subdivision paperwork (covenants/CC&Rs) address maintenance of the private road serving the new lots.

County planning staff described the proposal as a four‑lot moderate subdivision that would create one ~20‑acre parcel (with an existing residence and a second, RV residence), one ~13‑acre agricultural parcel to serve as a buffer to the adjacent Bright Star Campground, and two 3.5‑acre parcels intended for future homes. Staff reported that utilities are available from Empire Electric and Montezuma Water Company (a newly extended 4‑inch water line has capacity for about three additional residences). Septic systems were proposed for wastewater; wildfire mitigation and weed management waivers were recommended by the county agencies because of site conditions.

During public comment, resident Rachel Kamisky of Road 22 said she did not oppose the subdivision but asked that the applicants include road‑maintenance provisions in their CC&Rs because nearby neighbors had recently invested in road work: “My only request is that they would put provisions in their subdivision for maintaining the road as well,” Kamisky told the commission.

Commissioners discussed the project’s relation to an existing Planned Unit Development envelope for Bright Star Campground and whether prior approvals applied to the same parcel; staff clarified the PUD is a permitted envelope that is surveyed and (as recorded) does not extend across the proposed 13‑acre agricultural parcel. Commissioners also requested that prospective buyers be made aware of applicable land‑use requirements.

The motion to recommend approval (4–1) included conditions that the applicants create covenants for the new subdivision, include road‑maintenance language, and provide notice to future owners about the land‑use code. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.

Votes at a glance: Commissioner Hernandez — Aye; Commissioner Nygaard — Aye; Commissioner Lynch — Nay; Commissioner Armstrong — Aye; Commissioner Doyle — Aye.

Background: The campground on the larger parcel has operated since about 2012 under a PUD/permitted envelope; surrounding land uses are agricultural and residential with nearby state lands. Access to the proposed lots is from Road H; no natural gas service was reported.

The commission’s packet and staff findings are part of the record for the BOCC hearing.","Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–1 to recommend approval of a four‑lot moderate subdivision and concurrent rezoning submitted by Troy Jankowski for land south of Highway 160, subject to conditions including a road‑maintenance provision.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607025,"Planning commission postpones Ecole LeBleu application to a date to be determined",69,401000,470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900&start=401&end=470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956609-8e48e8f69dcf512bd5b3ad0c69b72900/thumbnail_401000.jpg","/articles/6607025/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Planning-commission-postpones-Ecole-LeBleu-application-to-a-date-to-be-determined","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607025-a67f8b4384b3ac02e57c2a2b5086724c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511769&Signature=GqTqE5mg1EgIvRAwBcZxbUM6MKNlZCZeHDSIo6tRklHmWnl75W1DKX9xrShMc7NeyAtesvwfaS12fcNdTKhw2iFXm4qZccOIrq~41gIrDzyGP2DoR2uPN16XMFrDikqGruWu14u1VOUDlsEnrj25SptGIZJ8owleQ~HuSxq8J8x9z-47Uqxqw4OkTzHiwbOh6cPhc5y3qc7Fx70lItnk4pZPo7LFa8f5pmIDOnDogFb19KCr6iY7-NjK5dmRsgH9FGdsqCPZVq~8Dk9akm4DzU-Zus6NoGOVaCdnReZwtpPiRCklYJZviGqD72yjoiQMdMdKHZfByie~kSblVFkdWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the outset of the April 9 meeting the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission took up the application of Ecole LeBleu. The applicant did not appear in time for the hearing, and staff confirmed the item had been noticed in the newspaper.

A commissioner moved to continue the Ecole LeBleu application to a later date to be determined. The motion and a second passed with no discussion, and the commission directed staff to re‑notice the item and redistribute application packets when a new hearing date is set.

Votes at a glance: Commissioner Hernandez — Aye; Commissioner Nygaard — Aye; Commissioner Lynch — Aye; Commissioner Armstrong — Aye; Commissioner Doyle — Aye.

Staff note: The continuation is procedural; the application will return to a future Planning and Zoning agenda after notice requirements are met.","The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted a request to continue the Ecole LeBleu application to a date to be determined; the item will be re‑noticed and packets redistributed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission recommends denial of four‑lot Summit Lake subdivision after traffic, access and compliance concerns

Commission recommends 10‑acre rezoning for horse‑holding site; neighbors raise traffic, containment questions

Planning commission backs 4‑lot subdivision south of Highway 160 with road maintenance condition

Planning commission postpones Ecole LeBleu application to a date to be determined