On Monday of this week, the District Court of San Miguel County found in favor of a group of Deep Creek Mesa homeowners for a land use claim filed against the County. This marks the second time Deep Creek Mesa homeowners have prevailed in a Rule 106(a) legal challenge prescribed by Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
This case arose from comments made by County Planning Director Kaye Simonson following the County and Town’s purchase of Diamond Ridge during work sessions regarding the proposed East End Master Plan. Ms. Simonson stated that none of the land on Deep Creek Mesa was subject to a Planned Unit Development Agreement other than the Aldasoro Ranch Subdivision.
These comments came as a surprise to many residents of Deep Creek Mesa, folks who believed that their properties were, indeed, subject to the PUD Agreement. This agreement provided protections against rezoning and higher-density development and assured the agricultural character and feel of Deep Creek Mesa. In fact, many of those residents purchased or built their homes for exactly these protections and assurances and paid real estate transfer assessments per the PUD Agreement, which Ms. Simonson stated did not apply.
Concerned by Planning Director Simonson’s assertions, a couple of Deep Creek Mesa homeowners sought clarification in August of 2023 by requesting a formal written determination on the matter. Not surprisingly, Ms. Simonson stuck to her guns and, in September of 2023, provided a written determination consistent with her verbal comments. This determination was appealed to the BOCC by the homeowners, and the BOCC upheld Director Simonson’s determination at a hearing on November 15, 2023. At this point, a larger group of Deep Creek Mesa homeowners filed a Rule 106(a) legal claim to challenge the BOCC decision.
The recent June 10, 2024, Court ruling on this claim can be found HERE, but the long story short is that the Court found in favor of the Deep Creek Mesa homeowners. In ruling against the County and Town, the Court stated, amongst other things:
“…the County’s argument ignores the comprehensive structure of the 1991 PUD Plan”
“…the County’s position is not reasonable”
“Another flaw in the County’s position…”
“The Court rejects this [the County’s] argument because it is illogical and leads to an absurd result.”
The Court affirmed that the entire Sheep Ranch was included and subject to the 1991 PUD Agreement. Therefore, all 2,701 acres of land referred to as the Sheep Ranch, including Grayhead, Golden Ledge, Diamond Ranch, and most of Diamond Ridge, are included in this ruling.
Perhaps more important than the Court ruling itself is the fact that the County and Town of Telluride chose to place themselves in a position that required taking “absurd” positions on legal matters. While one can only speculate on the reasons for this behavior, one plausible answer is a familiar subject to all of us: the Diamond Ridge saga.
Having overpaid massively for Diamond Ridge, perhaps the County and Town frivolously tried to prove that much more acreage of the Diamond Ridge property was not encumbered than they claimed to be the case when they rezoned back 2022? Or perhaps the prospect of further deals with Jack Vickers on his remaining Diamond Ranch property distorted their judgment? Or perhaps this is simply a case of incompetence at the staff level guiding policy? Whatever it may be, in the end, this small legal matter does nothing to rebuild trust and provides further evidence that the County and Town should not be in the development business on any large scale.
The Court has now ruled at least ~66 acres of the 105 acre Diamond Ridge property to be within the PUD, preventing any changes in zoning to support high-density housing for that acreage. As to the status of the ~39 acres of the Diamond Ridge property that was rezoned by the Town and County in 2022, but subsequently overturned by the Court, that issue will be decided by the Court later.
As of June 10, 2024, all of the Deep Creek Mesa Sheep Ranch property is protected from any development inconsistent with the original language of the 1991 PUD Agreement. It’s a good day for Deep Creek Mesa, a bad day for governmental overreach. We feel true gratitude for a system of jurisprudence that does, indeed, work.
Our work continues, and as always, we encourage you to reach out directly to info@lastdollarcollective.com with any thoughts, questions or ideas. Thank you all for your support!
