The Cielo Vista Ranch’s latest attempt to bring its eight-foot tall fence into an acceptable form was denied by the Costilla County Commissioners during Tuesday’s meeting. The ranch had gained a hearing in the regular agenda to appeal two specific notices from the planning and zoning administration, in which the county commissioners acted as the board of adjustments.
After three hours of questions, testimony, some choice words from the audience, and two separate executive sessions, the commissioners voted unanimously to deny the requests. Citing specific land use language and a lack of procedure and evidence from the Cielo Vista Ranch, the matter, for now, is closed. The fence still stands in its current state.
When asked if the ranch will appeal the commissioners’ decision, Jose Castro of Spencer Fane, a ranch attorney, said CVR has “no comment currently.”
Further construction is still prohibited by the moratorium, which is set to expire in September. The injunction and court order also prohibit construction. Currently, the ranch and the county commissioners are awaiting trial or a resolution, whichever comes first.
The ranch wanted to appeal two notices given to them from the county’s planning and zoning administration. First, the ranch understood the fence to be a “non-conforming” use of the land use code and that further expansion and alterations were allowed. Castro argued that under those provisions, the ranch would be allowed to install deer jumps, revegetate areas, and repair the fence as needed without having to apply for any permits.
The second appeal was to remove notices of violations given to contract employees who were working on the fence. Castro argued that the work was allowed under the non-conforming use.
David Baumgarten, an attorney from Sullivan Green Seavy, represented Costilla County’s land use administration. He and Tara Medina, Costilla’s land use administrator, indicated that CVR did not provide photographs of the meeting notices, which is required by land use law, nor did Medina receive a copy of the certified notice that was required to be sent to adjacent landowners alerting them of this particular meeting. This, they said, was basis enough to deny the appeals.
Citing specific land use codes to support her decision to give CVR the notices of violations, Medina stated that the ranch never provided a map of fencing plans to indicate “where, when such expansions would go.” The ranch also never provided a definitive number of miles that would be built.
Granting CVR the ability to continue fencing would allow continuation of the “vast disturbance” that has already occurred and may occur in the future.
“We have never had such vast violations before,” she said. In addition to lacking a grading permit, she said, CVR submitted no permits for the construction of the fence.
Baumgarten said the burden of proof is on CVR. Medina said expansion of a nonconforming use without compliance with current zoning and county regulations would be “contrary to the code, the resolutions, and the requirements of the watershed overlay protection district.”
The commissioners based their denial of CVR’s appeal on several factors: the ranch’s fence design was never properly conveyed to the planning and zoning administration; provisions of the land use were not conformed to; public testimony to the adverse effects to wildlife and the character of the community; and that CVR did not meet their burden of proof.
Commission chair Steven Romero said, “I almost feel if we were to grant the appeal, we’re just writing a blank check.”
The Ranch’s Perspective
Carlos DeLeon, Jr., a ranch employee and son of ranch manager Carlos DeLeon, testified during the hearing. He provided insight into why the fence was being constructed, but raised more questions than answers.
The new high fence replaces an old barbed-wire fence from previous owners, he said.
DeLeon told the commissioners that stopping construction prevents the ranch from addressing certain “issues which would otherwise be mitigated by finished construction.”
He said the moratorium has left “CVR with an incomplete structure” and “inability to address wildlife concerns with planned wildlife crossings.” With the order to stop construction, the moratorium has also “taken away CVR’s ability to secure its property.”
“The current stage is a poor representation of the final product,” DeLeon said.
With an incomplete fence and a moratorium preventing them from any work on the fence, he argued, the ranch can’t install any more wildlife jumps.
Commissioners asked him about the reasoning for putting the deer jumps miles apart, rather than at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife-recommended spacing of every 1,000 feet. DeLeon told them that it was based on his and fellow ranch employees’ observations of where elk cross naturally. “Years of being on the property and seeing where the animals cross, following their trails, just knowing the areas that they use,” rather than any real migratory data.
A resident allowed The Citizen to view a video on her phone, which showed a herd of elk hindered by the fence. They were seemingly cornered and were running back and forth within the boundary.
Part of CVR’s reasoning for building the high fence was given and put into the record. Simply, the “ultimate contemplation” is to build a perimeter fence along the entire boundary of the Cielo Vista Ranch. The only exceptions would be at the various conservation easements within and at the eastern boundary of the ranch, which is the ridgeline of the mountains – with places that exceed 13,000 feet in elevation and crosses the summit of 14,049 foot Culebra Peak.
Currently, Castro said, the ranch does not have a complete map of the already-constructed fence and the condition of its current state. However, he said it was something that the ranch would be open to creating.
Castro also stated that the ranch received a letter from the Colorado Division of Water Resources Water Quality Division, stating that a permit may be required from them and that the letter indicated a “potential violation.” The ranch is currently working with the state in this matter.