Planning commission backs ‘The Patch’ special-use review for seasonal events with limits and traffic study condition

The Elbert County Planning Commission recommended approval June 17 of a Special Use Review (case SUR-20024-7360) for The Patch, a long-running agritourism operation proposed for a roughly 110-acre parcel at 7360/7400 State Highway 86. The commission’s 5–3 vote forwards the application to the Board of County Commissioners with conditions including staff’s proposed requirements and additional limits the commission imposed on the scope of allowed activities and traffic mitigation.

Planning staff summarized the application and staff’s recommended conditions: require re-permitting of existing structures where commercial use is appropriate, require a traffic impact study to be submitted to CDOT and Elbert County Public Works within three years of county approval (and earlier if warranted), revise the Special Use Review exhibit to comply with county standards, require portable sanitation and sanitation plans, remove public notice signs within two weeks of final hearings, and record any required documents within 180 days of BOCC approval.

Applicants Dusty (Dustin) and Kathy Smith spoke for The Patch and described a history of seasonal operations that began as a pumpkin patch and has grown to host additional events including Easter activities, summer-night programs, movie nights, weddings, farmers markets and a Christmas drive-through. The applicants said they have previously operated under temporary use permits for short seasonal events and that CDOT approved a traffic letter for current access; they told commissioners they have worked with building and health departments on permitting and that the Division of Water Resources and other agencies reviewed the property.

Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition or with concerns about the expanded scope of year-round events, pointing to noise, nighttime lighting, larger crowds, traffic entering and exiting at State Highway 86, and effects on livestock and fencing. Sandra Clayton, a neighbor whose property borders the site, said she had been told The Patch would operate for two months a year as a pumpkin patch but had later learned the applicants seek year-round and multi-event approval; she told commissioners the traffic and nighttime lighting already have affected livestock routines and created safety concerns where drivers mistakenly enter neighbors’ driveways.

Planning commissioners debated the appropriate scale and specificity of approval. Several commissioners said the application packet was large but lacked the specificity they needed—for example, site distances, some exhibit dimensions, and completed notarized authorization forms. Commissioners repeatedly returned to traffic: CDOT and the Office of Emergency Management had exchanged comments during the referral process and last recommended a traffic study be provided within three years; commissioners and neighbors said a near-term traffic study and stronger mitigation measures would be required if event attendance grows. The applicants said they had provided CDOT with a traffic letter and are required by CDOT to coordinate traffic mitigation, including movable signage and coordination with Colorado State Patrol and the sheriff’s office during busy events.

The Planning Commission added three conditions during its recommendation: limit the SUR’s authorized uses to Easter activities, “summer nights” movie/discount nights, the fall pumpkin patch and a Christmas lights/drive-through program; require that a full traffic study (beyond the existing CDOT traffic letter) be completed and submitted to the county for review; and install field fence or other livestock-protection fencing along the shared property line to reduce trespass and livestock risks. The commission also asked that the applicant address conservation-district comments on erosion and parking, and that building-permit requirements be enforced before additional uses expand.

Vote and next steps: The motion to recommend approval with those conditions passed by roll call, 5–3. Commissioners who voted in favor said staff’s conditions plus the added limits and traffic study put appropriate guardrails around future growth; those voting against said the packet lacked sufficient specificity to judge compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods and rural agricultural uses.

Ending: The Planning Commission’s recommendation, the required revisions to the SUR exhibit, and the traffic-study requirement will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. The SUR is not effective until fees are paid, conditions are met and the SUR exhibit is recorded, per county practice.