Montezuma County denies Leaf Properties high‑impact retail permit after appraisal and safety disputes

Montezuma County commissioners voted 2‑1 on July 8 to deny a high‑impact permit application from Leaf Properties Incorporated for a proposed retail sales use on a 3.78‑acre parcel at 27078 Road in Dolores.

The decision followed a remand hearing limited to written materials submitted after the board's June 24 session, including an appraisal Leaf Properties added to the record. Commissioners said they weighed that appraisal together with public comment and prior testimony; residents and commissioners flagged traffic safety, firefighting capacity and potential effects on nearby property values as principal concerns.

The board reopened the hearing specifically to allow comment on documents submitted at the last meeting. Several nearby residents questioned the appraisal’s scope and methodology. “The appraisal did not even look at potential changes in values for nearby properties,” said Amy Jacobs of 13299 Road 27.6 in Dolores. “The evidence that was provided didn't counter that at all.” Brad Demond of 15149 Road 28 said the appraisal relied on a valuation premise that the property would be split — an outcome he said was not reflected in the application or allowable under current parcel‑size rules.

Dale Ward, a local resident who reviewed publicly available crash data, told the board that a traffic table supplied by the applicant undercounted accidents at the key intersection: “Table 3 showed 1 accident for the period between 2018 through 2022. CDOT data ... shows 6.” Dawn Utrecht of 27418 Road N said she viewed the appraiser as a retained expert for the applicant and questioned the impartiality of the valuation.

Leaf Properties’ representative told the commissioners the appraisal focused on the value of the commercial portion of the parcel and that third‑party consultants and CDOT review supported safety findings. “We think we've done everything right. We relied on the zoning, the planning maps, the overlays,” the applicant’s representative said, adding the applicant had proposed a 10,000‑gallon on‑site water tank to address firefighting concerns and had engaged traffic consultants and CDOT on access.

County counsel reminded the board the decision must follow the county land‑use code decision criteria, including conformity with the code, avoidance of significant adverse impacts on other properties, and availability of public utilities or ability to make them available. Commissioner discussion centered on whether the project would create “significant adverse impacts” at the heavily traveled State Highway 145/County Road Inn intersection, and on fire response and water supply for structure fire risk.

After discussion the commission made a motion to deny the permit, citing public safety, traffic hazards, fire‑safety risk, and the application’s potential to disrupt local character. The board’s presiding statements and roll call produced a two‑to‑one formal denial.

The board also directed that the denial be memorialized in a written decision as required by the land‑use code and suggested any future development proposals should include more detailed architectural elevations and a clearer mitigation plan for trees, site access and winter driving conditions. Commissioners and the applicant noted the applicant could propose conditions to address specific concerns if the applicant chose to pursue future applications.

The denial closes this permitting effort unless the applicant pursues another application or an appeal that would reopen the substantive review.

Sources: public comments and testimony during the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners public hearing, July 8, 2025.