Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs Explorer Paradox RV park, cites conditions on water and access
Summary
The commission voted to recommend approval of the Explorer Paradox special-use permit (SU25-001) for an RV park on about 40 acres, subject to conditions including a new access permit, a new well permit and OWTS/permitting requirements.
The Montrose County Planning Commission recommended approval of Explorer Paradox (SU25-001), an application for an RV park on roughly 40 acres east of Paradox, forwarding the matter to the Board of County Commissioners with recommended conditions.
Planning staff (Talmadge) said the site is zoned general agricultural and that approval would require upgraded infrastructure: a commercial access permit for the new use, a new well permit and a re-permit or new on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) permit to incorporate the proposed RV and camping spaces under current county regulations. Staff told the commission "Number 5, a new access permit would be required to upgrade it to commercial. Number 9, a new well permit would be required. And number 10, a new order to estimate the amount," when listing notable conditions in the packet.
The applicant described a small-scale operation that includes two RV pads and eight tent camping spaces south of the house, with an agricultural-retreat element. The applicant said the property already has an existing domestic well and that users would typically use house restroom facilities. "My intention is only to ever have, you know, 3, 4 people max," the applicant said, while acknowledging county rules currently set a 10-space minimum for some permit types.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on monitoring and enforcement should the use expand and on whether the house's wastewater system (OWTS) could handle the proposed uses. Staff said the project would be reviewed at the maximum allowed (10 spaces) and that enforcement would be complaint-driven; staff also noted routine conditions the commission could add.
A commissioner moved to recommend approval based on the criteria listed in staff’s report, 1 through 10, and to attach typical conditions of approval; the motion was approved and will be forwarded to the BOCC for final action.
Next steps: the BOCC will consider the planning commission’s recommendation, and any final approval will be contingent on compliance with the conditions spelled out in the staff report (access permit, well permit and OWTS/permitting as discussed).
