Estes Park Trustees were deadlocked in a 3-3 vote on proposed updates to rezoning criteria during Tuesday’s Town Board of Trustees meeting, leading to the failure of the modified ordinance. The decision means further discussion will be required at a future meeting. Community members, including representatives from Preserve Estes Park, voiced strong opposition to the proposed changes to Section 3.3 of the Estes Park Development Code at town hall.
The proposed rezoning criteria, which have been deliberated at planning commission meetings throughout the year and first presented to the town board in May, stipulate that for approval, any zoning change must align with the future land use plans outlined in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, changes would need to be compatible with surrounding areas, mitigate adverse impacts, and ensure the availability of adequate services and facilities. Rezoning not aligning with the future land use plan would be required to demonstrate necessity in addressing a change in conditions or correcting a technical error.
A new section pertaining to townwide and large-scale updates, introduced late in the drafting process, generated specific questions and concerns from trustees during the recent meeting. Town staff and counsel clarified that this section was designed to reflect existing state law and practice, aiming to differentiate broad legislative changes—such as updating notice rules or adopting a townwide zoning map—from quasi-judicial decisions on applications for specific properties. Town Attorney Dan Kramer explained that broad changes to the development code fall under the town board’s legislative authority, where the board acts as a rule maker, as opposed to its quasi-judicial role of applying rules to specific development proposals.
Trustees raised concerns that the section’s language, referencing large areas or multiple property owners, could be interpreted as a means to bypass the standard rezoning process. Staff and counsel assured the board that this section was intended for comprehensive, board-driven changes, not private rezoning applications, and would not alter the requirements of Ordinance 11-25. This voter-approved law, passed in November 2025, mandates approval from two-thirds of neighboring property owners for a property rezoning request. Kramer reiterated that the town already possesses this legislative power, and adding the text to Section 3.3 merely codifies existing state law within the town’s policies.
Community members used the public hearing to express their dissatisfaction. Rebecca Urquhart stated that residents had voted on rezoning and desired neighbor approval, expressing opposition to the town rezoning neighborhoods without it. Kristine Poppitz, a leader of Preserve Estes Park and a proponent of Ordinance 11-25, informed trustees about an online petition opposing any changes to the development code until the comprehensive rewrite is finalized. Since its posting on October 9, the petition has gathered 150 signatures and 48 comments, largely opposing the adoption of the new rezoning criteria outside of the overall rewrite. Poppitz urged the board to "listen to the citizens and make decisions according to their voices," highlighting a widespread lack of understanding among citizens regarding the urgency of discussing these changes before the full rewrite is complete. Town staff, however, stated they addressed the rezoning criteria separately due to their significant impact and the necessity for public input.
In a separate action, trustees approved another proposed amendment to the development code concerning neighborhood and community meetings required for most development applications within town, following internal debate. The original proposal would have granted the community development director authority to waive or require additional neighborhood meetings based on a development's impact. It also stipulated that the applicant would host and moderate these meetings and provide a summary of plans to address concerns, with town staff attending in an advisory capacity. Community Development Director Steve Careccia offered an example where a project that previously held a meeting, was denied, and then reapplied, might be eligible for a waiver if the initial meeting saw little attendance or controversy. Conversely, complex projects or those with potentially adverse impacts might necessitate additional meetings.
Concerns were voiced by both trustees and members of the public regarding ensuring residents’ questions were fully addressed and clarifying the role of town staff throughout the meeting process. Following discussions, the ordinance was approved with three modifications. These changes restored weekend meetings, which had initially been removed due to required staff attendance outside business hours, clarified the language by specifying "town staff" instead of just "staff," and removed the director’s authority to waive the initial meeting, thereby ensuring a one-meeting minimum requirement.
The debate over rezoning criteria occurs as the town continues its broader development code rewrite, which is expected to conclude by the end of the year. In addition to the code amendments, trustees also unanimously approved several key appointments, plans, and policy updates during the meeting.
