Board of Adjustment upholds denial of Shaw guest‑ranch application

The Chaffee County Board of Adjustment on a motion upheld the planning department’s December 3, 2024 denial of a certificate of zoning compliance for the Shaw Guest Ranch, a proposed commercial lodging project on roughly 33 acres west of Poncho Springs and below Monarch Pass.

The decision matters because it rests on how the county’s land use code defines a “guest ranch” after a June 2023 amendment that emphasized ties to an actual working ranch. Planning staff said the applicant’s proposal and materials did not demonstrate that the site functioned as a working ranch and that the project’s scale — 12 proposed detached commercial lodging units plus two existing permitted dwellings — was more properly reviewed as a resort under the county code.

Nick Gomer, planning department staff, told the board the application was submitted in late 2024 and was reviewed under the prior code. “The final application did propose 12 new detached commercial lodging units, goats and infrastructure related to keeping those goats such as a corral or pasture land ... a disc golf course, agri tourism classes and spa and yoga facilities,” Gomer said in his staff report. Gomer said staff concluded the proposed program and scale were consistent with the county’s definition of a resort and therefore merited a limited‑impact review rather than the administrative certificate of zoning compliance available for a guest ranch.

The applicant appealed the denial on Jan. 1, 2025. Attorney Max Montag, representing JTS Development LLC, argued the planning department applied the wrong review pathway and treated the applicant differently than other recent guest‑ranch approvals. Montag said pre‑application correspondence from staff prompted the applicant to file a land‑use change application, which triggered a higher administrative standard; he described internal staff emails that, in his view, showed prejudgment. “We ask that you, all vote in favor of overturning the planning department’s decision and granting the guest ranch application,” Montag said.

Owner John Shaw spoke during public comment and described a staged business plan. “I was gonna build 4 units to start with. I’m a businessman. I’m not gonna build 12 units and hope people show up,” Shaw said, explaining the 12‑unit figure was a long‑range maximum rather than an immediate build‑out. Shaw objected to the idea that he should erect barns, corrals and bring livestock onto the site before obtaining a certificate of zoning compliance.

Gomer and others noted the 2023 guest‑ranch definition emphasizes that a guest ranch is a ranch that provides multi‑night guest accommodations and includes barns, pastures and livestock “related to a working ranch.” Staff said the application’s post‑submission additions (including goats) read as afterthoughts and did not show the scale or economic reliance on livestock the county expects for a working ranch. The planning report also cited precedent: recent approvals such as Adventure Unlimited and Young Life were for much smaller additions (four units) or long‑standing nonconforming uses, and Wagon Wheel involved a different factual record.

Commissioners and board members framed the decision narrowly. One commissioner said the June 2023 definition was “designed to support actual working ranches, not potential working ranches.” Another commissioner said the proposal in its current form “looks a lot like a resort” and that there are paths forward through the land‑use review process if the applicant wishes to pursue a resort or seek conditions that address traffic, natural resources and public notice.

A motion to uphold the planning department’s denial passed (motion seconded; roll call recorded as unanimous in the meeting record). The board’s decision affirms staff’s determination that this proposal requires more extensive review than a guest‑ranch certificate of zoning compliance would provide.

Next steps discussed by the board and by staff included the applicant’s ability to revise the application, pursue a limited‑impact review appropriate for a resort designation, or return with additional, specific evidence of an existing, profit‑oriented working ranch operation. The meeting record does not show any immediate direction from the board to administratively reopen the current denial.