Mesa County approves East Creek Adventures campground despite neighbor easement disputes

Mesa County commissioners on Jan. 20 approved a conditional use permit for East Creek Adventures (PRO2025‑0044), allowing a 25‑site semi‑developed campground and up to 12 small events per year with a limit of 118 guests for the event parking configuration. The board vote was 3–0.

Samantha Hoagland, associate planner for Mesa County Planning, presented the application and recommended approval with conditions including adherence to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regulations, compliance with the county’s campground and minor entertainment event regulations, a 12‑event annual cap, guest limits tied to parking, additional temporary sanitation during events and required site plan approval before opening.

Taylor Valentine, the applicant’s representative with River City Consultants, said the project preserves riparian vegetation, adds a 6‑foot berm for visual buffering, uses an existing CDOT access that requires no additional state roadway permit, and that a traffic study showed campground traffic would be below 20% of the access’s previous permitted intensity. Valentine described the campground as a low‑impact, tourism‑supporting use.

Neighbors raised objections during public comment. Krell Steglemeyer, who said his residence lies on the northeast side of the property, alleged the landowner has piped portions of an irrigation ditch and removed a diversion box without permission and said the RV spots and internal roads encroach on existing ditch and easement rights. “I've been forced to hire a lawyer to sue him for my civil rights,” Steglemeyer said. Craig Reed, an adjacent landowner, said a driveway easement serving five properties runs through the middle of the planned facility and called the arrangement unsafe and inappropriate.

Applicant counsel Sandra Teske told the board there is active Mesa County litigation between the parties over easement scope and use and said those private disputes are for the courts to resolve. County staff and planning commission materials noted agency review and a planning commission recommendation of approval (4–1).

Board members debated whether a conditional use permit would create an entitlement while private easement litigation remains unresolved. Commissioners emphasized that the county’s role is to determine whether the land development code standards are met and that site plan review and permit conditions would address permanent structures; staff said building over irrigation easements would not be allowed and that permanent structures would be reviewed during site plan approval.

A motion to approve the CUP and the staff‑recommended resolution with conditions carried 3–0. The approval is conditioned on the items in the project report; site plan review remains required before any construction or events begin.

Next steps: the applicant must submit a site plan demonstrating compliance with conditions and obtain any required permits; ongoing private litigation over ditch and driveway easements remains unresolved and could affect implementation.