The Town of Estes Park is disputing several statements in an Estes Valley Voice article about an occupancy dispute involving a home at 450 Hillside Ln., saying the property was never legally approved as a duplex and that unresolved life-safety concerns remain.
In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, town officials asked the Estes Valley Voice to correct what they described as factual inaccuracies in the article.
The Estes Valley Voice met with Matt Tschohl and his attorney, Alix LaSalle, for an interview on July 19 at Vert Coworking. During that meeting, Tschohl explained the situation he finds himself in regarding his property and said he was told by the town he could not move into the property nor rent the side he planned to lease.
The Estes Valley Voice first reached out to the Town for comment and clarification by email regarding Tschohl’s concerns on July 19, and again on July 22 and July 24 for information about the matter.
The town informed the Estes Valley Voice on Friday that staff needed additional time to review records before responding to detailed questions because the town’s community development director, Steve Careccia, was out of the office until Tuesday.
Officials said they met Tuesday morning after Careccia’s return, but the Estes Valley Voice article was published late Tuesday morning before the town’s response could be provided.
Safety concerns drive town’s actions
Town officials said they recognize the Tschohl family’s situation is difficult but said safety concerns drive their actions.
“This matter is, and always has been, about the safety of the people who would live in this home,” the statement said, citing concerns about a gas water heater installed in an enclosed space without proper ventilation.
According to the town, the issue surfaced before the property’s sale closed when the real estate agent representing both buyer and seller discovered during a title search that the home was recorded as a single-family residence.
Officials said town staff met with the buyer and realtor before closing and informed them that the town considered the structure a single-family home because the duplex conversion had never been completed.
The town said it has since worked with the buyer, seller and broker to identify possible solutions, including allowing occupancy as a single-family residence following a life-safety inspection, exploring a two-family occupancy arrangement, and offering an on-site assessment by the chief building official.
Officials said that assessment has not yet occurred but remains available.
The town also challenged several specific claims made by Tschohl reported in the article.
Officials said town records show the property was cited for illegal duplex occupancy in December 1980, followed by a notice of noncompliance in January 1981.
The Town Board of Appeals denied the owner’s request to complete the conversion without correcting a life-safety issue involving a gas water heater and set a July 1981 compliance deadline.
While the building may have been occupied as two units, officials said it was never legally converted into a duplex.
The town also disputed a statement that Larimer County classifies the property as a duplex, saying assessor records identify the parcel as a single-family, four-bedroom residence.
Officials further said a 1981 subdivision plat labeling the lot “duplex” does not authorize a building’s use or occupancy and that a permit routing slip referenced in the article documents only a plan review, not final approval of construction.
Addressing questions raised about missing municipal records, the town said its files contain a consistent chronological record showing the permit issuance, inspections, notices of illegal occupancy, and Board of Appeals proceedings.
Officials said the file lacks a final inspection or certificate of occupancy because the conversion process was never completed.
Citing a primary life-safety deficiency identified in 1980 — a gas water heater in an enclosed space without proper ventilation — the town says the problem is still outstanding today.
In an email to the Estes Valley Voice, the town wrote, “What is absent is a final inspection and certificate of occupancy — because the owner (in the 1980s) never completed the process. And beyond the absence of a record, we have affirmative evidence the work was not finished: the seller confirmed the water heater remains in its original location.”
No legal authority to “grandfather” the property as a duplex
The town also said there is no legal basis for the duplex to be grandfathered because building codes in effect at the time required final approval before occupancy as a duplex could be authorized.
Officials rejected assertions that they had failed to identify applicable code provisions, saying Tschohl has been provided with the relevant information along with instructions for appealing the town’s determination.
Because the Town Board of Appeals currently has no members, the Town Board would first need to appoint a body to hear the appeal before the case could proceed, officials said. They did not provide a timeline for when that could occur.
The town said it remains willing to conduct an on-site assessment of the property, describing it as the most direct path toward resolving the dispute.
“Our door remains open to Mr. Tschohl,” the statement said. “The on-site assessment is available whenever he is ready.”