Concerned proposed ballot initiatives preempts Development Code update process

I would like to express my appreciation for Rob Washam’s letter in which he shares his concerns about the legality of the proposed ballot initiatives related to zoning. Mr. Washam writes: “The measure effectively delegates zoning authority to a small group of unelected neighbors.”

My concern is a simpler one. As noted in both the Estes Park News and The Trail Gazette, the Development Code will be updated after a process involving and including all Estes Park residents during an 18 to 24 month effort to take a broader look at the entire Code and likely recommend a variety of wide-ranging changes. This process has begun and will continue through 2026. All members of the community are encouraged to participate.

It would seem counterproductive to amend the Development Code prior to the completion of the written update in 2026, especially since the proposed ballot initiatives represent a relatively small number of residents as opposed to the inclusion of any and all residents in the process which is now in progress.

Louise Olson, Estes Park


3 replies on “Letter to the Editor”

  1. While it may seem “counterproductive” to amend the Development Code prior to the anticipated 2026 overhaul, there has been a rush by developers to submit re-zoning requests ever since the first proposal to obtain a percent of neighbor approval was put on the ballot. Without these Code amendments, numerous projects could be approved during the interim period, with devastating effects on existing neighborhoods. And each one could result in litigation, expensive for the Town and neighbors, on the basis of illegal “spot re-zoning”. The Code Amendment proposals are being submitted to the voters to stop the rubber stamping of projects without sufficient regard to the impact on surrounding homes. We all know there is a shortage of affordable housing, but that is true all over the country. Subdividing large lots, allowing extra height and cramming in buildings next to existing homes is problematic for those who chose their homes based on its existing zoning and neighborhood character. Perhaps a better solution is to deal with the reality that 40% of the houses are second homes, often empty, owned by wealthy out of towners.

  2. I don’t think the people proposing this change realize the ‘ Let them eat cake.’ optics they have created for themselves. The simple fact of the matter is that the people who work to support the lifestyles of the the wealthier people of Estes Park need a place to live to. If they’re good enough to come into your house to clean or repair it, they’re good enough to live near it. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you are the one who should find someplace else to live.

    1. No one says they don’t want to live next to workers. I have blue collar workers next door, and they chose their lot for the open space of the 1+ acre lots. Our favorite neighbors were local workers, and they were forced to move when noisy vacation rental popped up around them. What we are saying is the Town does not care a bit about the residents who saved all of their lives, spent time and money searching for a neighborhood they wanted to invest and live in, and they are now being told, sell your house, subdivide your lots and have your neighbors subdivide, and jam it with high rise apartments next door. Or move out. I clean my own house, do my own repairs, and rarely eat out. But you are telling me I have no right to have a decent sized house (big deal.. 3 bedrooms so our kids have a place to stay when they are out of work) on a lot with a view. I worked here in the 70’s, lived in a dorm, and I didn’t go around calling the people who had single family homes elitist. I knew housing was limited, but at the time, wanted the mountain experience. When it was time to find better paying jobs and cheaper housing, I moved to a city for 30 years. Now that I can have a house on a larger lot, all you want to to is call me a NIMBY.

Comments are closed.