Routt County commissioners table decision on Buckethead Ranch special‑use permit to Sept. 16

Owners Maria and Jose Smith sought a special‑use permit for Buckethead Ranch, a 14,000‑acre property near County Road 53 in the Hayden area, proposing limited guest ranch operations and recreational events with a cap on overnight accommodations and annual events. Planning staff described the project (PL20240095) as a mix of guest‑ranch stays (up to six rental units at any time and up to 20 overnight guests) and up to 10 special events per year (small events up to 200 attendees and medium events up to 500). Staff recommended approval with conditions, including a phased approach to the county’s employee‑housing requirement and standard event controls.

The Smiths told commissioners they intend a limited, family‑oriented operation that supplements ranch income while keeping the property intact for future generations. Maria Smith said the couple currently runs about 50 cattle, may scale toward 500 by 2027, and would provide potable water via off‑site vendors for events. She also said the business had not operated paid events prior to this application and that the family was not marketing bookings until permit approval.

Planning staff (Michael and Alan) outlined site features: a main compound set above the road with arenas, corrals, a lawn and a pickleball court; multiple scenic event locations across the large parcel; an existing fenced bike‑parking solution; and some BLM lands accessible by crossing agreement. Staff reported the on‑year full‑time equivalent (FTE) calculation for the proposed operation is about 1.965 FTEs, which triggers a requirement (per the county code) equivalent to one housing unit after mitigation; the applicant requested a variance to allow off‑site housing in nearby municipalities with a one‑year phase‑in. Staff said CDOT/AASHTO standards and portable sanitation plans were in the application and recommended approval with conditions and supported the variance given the remote, seasonal nature of the operation.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about employee housing (whether the housing requirement would pull units out of an already tight local rental market), how the applicant would meet the housing obligation, whether purchased or newly constructed housing was intended, and whether reliance on off‑site housing would worsen local shortages. Commissioners also pressed for documentation of well permits and water availability, given the applicant’s statement that irrigation rights do not exist and potable event water would be hauled in; they asked staff to correlate the property description with Division of Water Resources records. Several commissioners expressed concern about the permitted maximum of 500 people at medium events and asked staff for comparable examples and cumulative‑impact analysis on transportation and roads.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to table the application so the county and applicant could return with clearer documentation. The board voted to table the item to September 16 at 11:00 a.m. and asked staff and the applicant to provide: (1) clearer options for meeting the employee‑housing mitigation without removing market housing for local workers, including alternatives such as deed‑restricted or dedicated units; (2) copies or legal descriptions sufficient for staff to check well permits and water‑use authority; and (3) comparative data and additional detail on event size assumptions and expected vehicle/shuttle traffic so the board can better assess road and infrastructure impacts. No final land‑use approval or denial was taken; the application remains pending.

The commissioners and planning staff repeatedly characterized the operation as seasonal and low‑intensity in most respects but asked that conditions and any variance be written to avoid unintended impacts to housing supply and county roads.