Point/Counterpoint: Rezoning

THE NEED TO RETHINK REZONING

by Bill Brown

At the Estes Park Town Board meeting held on Jan. 28, the board considered a request to rezone property on the east side of Highway 7 between the highway and the golf course.

The developer, a local builder with an excellent reputation, asked to rezone a one-acre parcel from a single-family zoning classification to a multi-family zone. Some of the units in the ten-unit development would have been deed restricted as workforce housing and thus would have helped to alleviate our town’s dire workforce housing shortage.

The density of the proposed development would have been in the middle of the range of density found in the neighborhood.

The determination of this board turned on the question of whether there had been a “change in circumstance”—one of the key requirements of the development code for a rezoning.

Some of the trustees did not believe there had been a change in circumstance despite significant development to the south of multi-family properties—mostly occurring in the 1990s.

While there is a large single family dwelling next door to this property owned by a local doctor, the property further north is a motel, and property to the south of the property and property to the north of the golf course has all been developed as multi family.

Based upon this decision, it is difficult to imagine this board approving any rezoning in the future. The property at issue is zoned the way it is only because in 1999 the town rezoned all the properties in the town based upon their actual usage at that time—which in this case was a one-acre single family dwelling.

That rezoning decision was not based upon any analysis of community needs or judgment of growth patterns within the town, but only on its usage at that time.

So, what is a change in circumstance sufficient to justify rezoning?

Is significant multifamily development in nearby properties not sufficient to constitute a change in circumstance?

Isn’t the documented growth in our shortage of workforce housing a community change in circumstance affecting the area at issue?

I strain to even speculate on what would be a change that the opponents of this redevelopment would deem sufficient for rezoning. Based on the criteria applied by this board, the only change that I see that could justify rezoning is the obliteration of a neighborhood by a natural disaster that necessitated complete rebuilding of the area.

As long as this is the approach of the town board, I suspect that town staff will never again recommend a rezoning, and it is difficult to imagine a rezoning application that will be approved by this board.

This town cannot be vibrant without additional workforce housing and a workforce that lives in the Estes Valley. I understand that 40% of our workforce commutes to Estes from down valley. Housing is too scarce and too expensive for many of our workers, including our first responders, our nurses and doctors, our schoolteachers, and even some of our local business owners.

We have a significant portion of our community who want to shut the door on development. Unrestricted development is not what any of us want for Estes.

However, managed development is an important component of building and maintaining a vibrant and engaged community. We need more young families to support our local businesses, populate our schools and engage in the community, and we won’t have that as long as we limit supply, thereby driving up rents and exacerbating our already critical workforce housing shortage.

As we embark upon a much overdue review of our development code, I hope that we will realize that we cannot thrive as a community without new blood and the ability to attract young families who want to live and work here. I believe we need to rethink how we approach redevelopment and not close the door on sensible projects like the one rejected at the last board meeting.

REBUTTAL TO BROWN’S POSITION ON REZONING

by Terry Rustin

Bill Brown, an Estes Park Town Board Trustee, advocates assertively in a letter he read into the public record Tuesday night at the Feb. 11 board meeting for his stance on rezoning and housing issues in Estes Park.

I care just as much, but we have distinctly different opinions.

A difference of opinion between respectful adversaries can produce a healthy and lasting compromise. Denigrating or demeaning adversaries leads to intransigence and resentment. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Brown wants Estes Park to be a “vibrant community” that welcomes young families. Laudable goals. He assumes, however, that a substantial increase in housing units will achieve those goals.

There is no evidence for this conclusion. Is there a survey of individuals who work in Estes but live in Ward, or Fort Collins, or Drake?

Does Brown know how many individuals who live in Boulder and work in Estes Park wish they lived in a small town in the mountains?

Or, do they prefer to live where they have access to diverse shopping opportunities, night life venues open after 9 p.m. big box stores, medical specialists, and a world-class university?

Does Brown know how many two income families have one person working in Loveland and the other working in Estes Park?

Individuals with chronic obstructive lung disease can tolerate being at 8,000 feet during the day when they are awake and upright, but cannot do so at night, due to a drop in their oxygenation.

Such individuals would be able to work in Estes Park but would not be able to live in Estes Park. Housing in Estes Park at any price would not be a consideration for them.

Brown’s letter focuses on housing units, neglecting the fact that housing units themselves are not vibrant individuals with families.

Rezoning from large lots to smaller ones, with the intention of increasing the number of housing units, does not adequately consider the question, “If all those units are occupied, will Estes Park be able to meet their needs?” 

As Brown correctly states, the original zoning of 860 South St. Vrain recognized the use of the property at the time of initial zoning. That zoning map also reflected the current use of every other piece of property, business, Town owned real estate, and everything else in Estes Park.

Thus, the infrastructure at that time was designed for that number of dwelling units. With the increase in housing units and population since then, the Town’s infrastructure is straining to serve the existing population.

Crews plow the snow as fast as they can, but some streets are impassable all day. The Public Works Department has its hands full and cannot answer every request to mow down weeds, clean out culverts, trim overhanging limbs, or fill potholes. We have just one compliance officer for the entire community.

How quickly could the Town provide more childcare, build another grocery store, double the size of the police department, and create more downtown parking?

Brown, in this letter and in his previous comments at Board meetings, conflates the terms “workforce housing,” “attainable housing” and “affordable housing.”

This is a common error in Estes Park, as evidenced by testimony at Board meetings by citizens, by applications to the Planning and Zoning Division, and by the response to the recent citizen initiatives on rezoning.

As an attorney, and as a Trustee, I would expect Brown to improve the public’s understanding of these terms, not to increase the level of confusion.

When a housing unit is designated “workforce,” it can only be sold or leased to a person who works in the Estes Valley. The developer receives variances in the construction of the project, which has the effect of reducing the per-square-footage cost of the construction. There is no requirement for the seller to pass on those savings to the purchaser, in whole or in part.

Therefore, the designation of “workforce” only guarantees that people who work in the Estes Valley have the option of buying or leasing that unit. It does not guarantee anything about the cost. “Workforce housing” is a benefit to developers, not a benefit to working people.

There is no question that a significant number of people who work in Estes live elsewhere. It is certainly inconvenient and expensive to drive up from 5,000 feet every day for work. But it is disingenuous to assert that designating units as “workforce” actually benefits the workforce or that the units under discussion are “affordable.” 

The 860 South St. Vrain project that Brown references would have put ten three-bedroom units on one acre of land, each selling between $700,000 and $800,000. As many individuals have documented for the Board, and which Brown must surely understand, purchasing one of these ten units would have required a down payment of about $150,000 and a monthly note of around $4000. Taxes, fees, utilities, HOA dues, and repairs increase the monthly costs considerably.

Although there is no official definition of “affordable housing,” mortgage companies generally consider that no more than one third of a person’s income should be spent on housing.

That suggests that a monthly income of at least $12,000, or $144,000 per year, would be needed to qualify for a loan of $600,000 to purchase one of these units. That income is greater than most working people in Estes Park earn. It is higher than most teachers, police officers, nurses, and Town employees receive, and far greater than servers, cooks, housekeepers, gardeners, clerks, or receptionists could ever hope to receive.

Adding housing in the $700,000 to $800,000 range would have no appreciable benefit to most workers who seek “affordable” housing.

“Workforce” is also confused with “attainable.” The definition of “attainable” housing is costing “less than 150 percent of the area median income.” The 2023 AMI for Larimer County, according to the Census Bureau, is $91,364.

This means that for a house to be judged to be “attainable,” it must be within the budget of an individual or family earning an annual income of 150 percent of $91,364, or $137,046 or less.

The cost of the proposed units at 860 South St. Vrain, therefore, would require an annual income greater than 150 percent of the area median income, and thus cannot be judged to be “attainable housing.”

The proposed units at 860 South St. Vrain would not be attainable by definition and would not be affordable by the working individuals and families who seek housing in Estes Park.

Contrary to Brown’s assertions, the project at 860 South St. Vrain would in no way ease the housing shortage. The benefit of rezoning that parcel of land would have accrued to the developer, not to people who need housing they can afford.

By publishing and presenting his letter as he did, Brown reveals his bias regarding rezoning and development applications. His letter states, “I believe we need to rethink how we approach redevelopment and not close the door on sensible projects like the one rejected at the last board meeting.”  

Further, he disrespects the other Trustees and the citizens opposed to the rezoning by intentionally exaggerating their opposition, “Based on the criteria applied by this board, the only change that I see that could jusfify [sic] rezoning is the obliteration of a neighborhood by a natural disaster that necessitated complete rebuilding of the area.”

Mayor Gary Hall frequently reminds us that rezoning determinations are “quasi-judicial” and as such, require that those sitting in judgment be impartial, eschewing outside influences. Brown announced in his letter that he does not intend to be impartial in future rezoning applications. He asserts that he alone is the judge of whether a rezoning application is “sensible.”  

Brown should consult Town Attorney Dan Kramer to determine if he should recuse himself from voting on any future rezoning request before the Board.

I remind Brown that opinions are not facts. A difference of opinion on a Board is not only acceptable, it is desirable. Last year, during deliberation about fire sprinklers by the Board in office at the time, members of the Board acknowledged that their “opinion” and therefore their vote, had changed during the deliberation.

This is an example of the value of independent thought by dedicated individuals. I remind Brown of the aphorism, “If two people have exactly the same opinion on everything, only one of them is doing any thinking.”

The mayor has also reminded us on several occasions that “words matter.” 

Brown is an attorney and certainly would agree that “words matter.” It is notable, therefore, that he misquotes the Estes Park Development Code five times in this letter, to wit, referring to one of the requirements for rezoning as “a change in circumstance,” rather than the correct term, “changes in conditions.” 

Any person knowledgeable on the topic of rezoning knows the correct term, so it may be that Trustee Brown used the incorrect term intentionally.

“Changes in conditions,” by definition and by precedent, refers to an environmental, physical, or legal situation affecting the immediate vicinity of the subject property, an alteration from the situation extant at the time of the original zoning to the current time.

“Change in circumstance” would refer to a personal situation, financial, legal, or social, relating to the individual involved. Loss of a job, divorce, marriage, an inheritance, a lawsuit, a conviction or graduation from Estes Park High School would be a change in circumstance.  Wanting to move to a larger house because of the arrival of twins would be a change in circumstance.

If Brown did indeed use the term “a change in circumstance,” rather than the correct term, “changes in conditions” intentionally, it would be because changes in circumstance are frequent, common and happen to everyone, which could bolster his case.

If he did not use the wrong term intentionally, it shows an unacceptable ignorance of the Planning and Zoning Division procedures and a disregard of the Development Code.

---

Editor’s note: Terry Rustin writes for the Estes Valley Voice and is a member of Preserve Estes Park, an organization which opposed rezoning of 860 South St. Vrain. He does not speak for that organization. Bill Brown, who was elected to the Estes Park Town Board in April 2024 and who is the Town Board liaison to the Estes Park Housing Authority, is married to the editor and publisher of the Estes Valley Voice. Brown has no editorial involvement in the publication.

The Estes Valley Voice welcomes commentaries and conversations among diverse voices conducted with civility.