Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivisions And Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Montezuma County planning panel recommends approval of five subdivision amendments, sets conditions on access and utilities

5588434 · August 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of five subdivision amendment or rezoning applications in Cortez on motions that included conditions for driveway widths, pipeline crossing consent and water easements. Four motions passed unanimously and one passed 3–1.

The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on an October meeting recommended approval of five subdivision-amendment or rezoning applications affecting properties near Cortez, imposing conditions addressing driveway width, pipeline crossing consent and utility easements.

Commissioners voted on separate applications that would adjust lot lines, add lots to minor subdivisions and subdivide a 31-acre parcel into three lots. The commission’s recommendations are advisory; final approvals go to the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners. The actions affect access routes on non–county-maintained subdivision roads, water service taps from Montezuma Water Company and a transmission access road used by Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).

The most contested item was a common lot-line adjustment in the Hartman Heights subdivision (lots 4 and 5). The commission recommended approval with a condition increasing the entry line from 25 feet to 50 feet; that motion carried 3–1 (Commissioners Hernandez, Armstrong and Doyle voted aye; Commissioner Lynch voted nay). Other applications — a three-lot amendment to the Ankholz minor subdivision, a multi-part amendment and re-subdivision in Rolling Hills Estates, and a two-acre boundary change in the Harrington Minor Subdivision — were each recommended unanimously with conditions tied to setbacks, pipeline crossing consent, water easements or maintaining WAPA access.

Key details by application:

Hartman Heights (Lots 4 & 5) — applicant: Mark Hedges Trust; agent: Julie Soukla. The two parcels (about 5.56 and 5.71 acres) were proposed for a common lot-line change to protect privacy and view corridors. Montezuma Water Company reported an existing 4-inch mainline and residential service to both parcels. The commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners included a condition that the entry point line be widened from 25 feet to 50 feet. Vote: 3–1 (Hernandez, Armstrong, Doyle aye; Lynch nay).

Ankholz minor subdivision (Lot 1) — applicants: Kyle and Ricky Cruzan. The proposal would split an existing two-lot minor subdivision to create a three-lot minor (parcel described at 27567 Road M, ~17.31 acres). Planning staff reported existing driveway access in place since 1986, two new driveway permits obtained, and a 3-inch Montezuma Water main with available capacity. The commission recommended approval with conditions to ensure a 35-foot clearance from the east property line to an existing building and to obtain written consent or agreement for the access crossing of a Cortez pipeline. Vote: unanimous.

Rolling Hills Estates (multiple related applications) — applicants: 842 Holdings LLC (Sean and Cassie Rooks) and Hurst Revocable Trust. The group of applications included common lot-line changes across several lots (2A East/West, 2B East/West), a conveyance of a strip of real property to provide direct access to Road H.6 for landlocked parcels, and a proposed subdivision of Lot 4A into three lots (31.11 acres total). Staff reported CDOT concurrence for the project’s traffic impacts, Empire Electric and WAPA service/access considerations, and Montezuma Water Company’s ability to add two additional residential services. The commission attached conditions including: a recorded water easement to the remainder parcel, and preservation of the WAPA access road and its clearance. Vote: unanimous.

Harrington Minor Subdivision (Lots 1 & 2, third amended) — applicants: Edward Tibalt and Robert Field. The proposal is a common lot-line change transferring roughly 2 acres to one property; both parcels already have utilities and driveway access. CDOT indicated no adverse highway impacts. The commission recommended approval with no additional conditions recorded during the hearing. Vote: unanimous.

Votes at a glance: - Hartman Heights (Lots 4 & 5; Mark Hedges Trust / agent Julie Soukla) — Recommend approval to BOCC with condition: expand entry line from 25 ft to 50 ft. Vote: Hernandez Aye; Armstrong Aye; Lynch Nay; Doyle Aye (motion carried 3–1). - Ankholz (Lot 1; Kyle & Ricky Cruzan) — Recommend approval to BOCC with conditions: maintain required setbacks and obtain consent for pipeline crossing/access. Vote: unanimous. - Rolling Hills Estates (842 Holdings LLC; Hurst Revocable Trust; Sean & Cassie Rooks) — Recommend approval to BOCC with conditions: recorded water easement to remainder parcel; preserve WAPA access/clearance. Vote: unanimous. - Harrington Minor Subdivision (Edward Tibalt; Robert Field) — Recommend approval to BOCC; no additional conditions recorded in hearing. Vote: unanimous.

Why it matters: The recommendations reorganize property rights and access in subdivisions near Cortez. Conditions attached by the commission are intended to protect neighboring properties, ensure utility service remains adequate, and preserve access required by a regional electric transmission owner. Final legal authority rests with the Board of County Commissioners.

Next steps: Each recommendation will be forwarded to the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners for final action. Applicants and staff discussed recording easements and obtaining required consents (for pipeline crossings and transmission-access roads) before platting or dedication.

(Procedure note: the commission emphasized that its role is advisory to the BOCC; the BOCC has final approval authority.)