Estes Park board changes how rezoning requests are judged

The Estes Park Town Board approved Ordinance 16-26 on Oct. 27, which lets a rezoning request qualify if it is substantially consistent with the comprehensive plan's future land use plan, rather than having to show a change in conditions. The ordinance amends Section 3.3 of the Estes Park Development Code.

Under the revised first criterion, a request that is inconsistent with that plan can still qualify by showing the rezoning is necessary to address a change in conditions or to correct a mistake or error. The amendment adds a second criterion on compatibility with surrounding properties and potential adverse impacts. It lets the board consider whether those impacts can be mitigated and impose conditions. A third criterion asks whether the town has infrastructure able to serve the requested zoning.

The town rewrote the first criterion because of the old change-in-conditions test. The Planning Commission and the Town Board had both identified it as a problem in evaluating rezonings, staff said, after work that lasted about 18 months, close to two years, and included joint sessions with the commission. Staff said the existing criterion asks whether a rezoning is necessary to address a change in conditions in the area affected. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

Meeting the future-land-use-plan test would not oblige the board to approve a rezoning. The board retains judgment after staff and the Planning Commission review a request. Mayor Gary Hall said Ordinance 1125 would apply before the board reached the amended criteria and would not be weakened by the amendment. A board member said the amendment did not change Ordinance 1125 or bypass the rezoning process, and called it an effort to fix a difficult review criterion after an extended process. No changes to the official zoning map were proposed.

Residents objected. One said the changes would undermine the protections voters backed in Initiative 300 and Ordinance 1125 and reduce public oversight, and urged the board to "please vote no on this provision that dilutes public participation." Another asked the board to keep a change-in-conditions requirement for all rezonings as an additional requirement rather than an alternative. A third asked the board to postpone the ordinance until the development-code rewrite was complete. A fourth said the rewrite had cost more than $300,000 and argued that the comprehensive plan was aspirational, had not been approved by voters and should not become a regulatory requirement.

The board split over using the comprehensive plan as a rule. A trustee who supported the amendment said it makes rezoning easier by offering plan consistency or correction of a technical error as alternatives, and more restrictive by limiting change-in-conditions review to the vicinity and adding the adverse-impact criterion. Trustee Mark Igel said the plan calls its future land-use map aspirational and that "the fatal flaw for me here in this is tying an aspirational guiding document into a requirement." Trustee Jamie Mieras said she would be comfortable if the plan were used as a reference rather than a rule. Trustee Frank Lancaster said reviewing adverse impacts, and the board's ability to consider an area larger than 500 feet, were preferable to an undefined change-in-conditions test, and that he was likely to support the amendment.

Supporters framed the question as a balance of interests. The same trustee described it as a balance between property owners' rights and those of neighbors and the wider community. Trustee Chris Eshelman said the plan should guide the board but not operate as a fixed rule. Lancaster said rezoning should be difficult because "people depend on what the zoning is when they purchase property."

After the vote, a trustee proposed a town hall where consultants and town development staff could present the broader development-code changes and answer residents' questions. Lancaster urged staff to maintain or increase public involvement as the rewrite nears completion. Hall said the board had chosen to take up the rezoning amendment separately from the broader code review to allow more discussion.