In the latest contentious land use disagreement, permitting for a new Dollar General Store at an intersection of Colorado Highway 145 and County Road N in Dolores drew sharp criticism Tuesday morning at a public hearing when a developer sat before the Montezuma County Board of Commissioners.
Douglas Kinsey, CEO of Georgia-based developer Leaf Properties, made his case to the board concerning the approval of a high impact use permit in the development of the proposed Dollar General during a hearing that lasted nearly three hours and included over a dozen local residents who voiced opposition to the proposed store.
“There’s a group of people here – and I don’t mean this in an ugly way – but they’re trying to tell me that I can’t do something with my land that I legally have the right to do,” Kinsey said during the meeting.
The hearing came after requests for approval of the 3.78-acre development had been shot down in April 2024, first unanimously by the county Planning & Zoning Commission, then in a 2-1 vote made by county commissioners. At that time, numerous local residents voiced their opposition to the plans, describing everything from traffic safety concerns to possible light pollution.
The following May, Leaf Properties filed suit in District Court against the county, and commissioners, alleging that when the board voted against approving the permit, it had failed to provide competent evidence behind their decision. The suit also alleged that the commissioners denied the developer due process.
In response, a judge ordered the commissioners to release a decision on the permit that included written findings.
Tuesday’s hearing marked the first step in the board’s new opportunity to consider the development’s approval.
Throughout the hearing, Kinsey presented evidence to convince the board that his development was in compliance with all of the county’s land-use codes and that he had resolved any issue brought forth during the previous hearings.
Yet, he said, it was the fact that the unpopular Dollar General would be his tenant, not any zoning compliance-related issues with the new store, that locals opposed.
About 10 minutes into the meeting, Kinsey pulled up screenshots from the “What's Up? Dolores, Mancos, Cortez!” Facebook group, showcasing several recent comments that opposed the new Dollar General. But none of the posts, he said, made mention of issues related to land-use code compliance.
Furthermore, Kinsey said, based on the stage he’d reached with ensuring compliance, the county’s codes said nothing that specifically prevented him from building the Dollar General.
“It’s the outcry that’s driving this,” Kinsey said.
For about the first two-thirds of the three-hour meeting, Kinsey presented numerous detailed points of evidence to show that his new development was up to code. At times, other guests representing third party opinions chimed in on video calls during the hearing, adding weight to Kinsey’s points.
Kinsey walked through several points previously used to uphold the denial of his development.
Addressing concerns about property valuation, Kinsey brought in Vic Romano, a third party appraiser for Colorado Bank, the financier of the project. The new development would not negatively affect property values, Romano said.
For concerns about traffic, Kinsey invited Mary Gormley of Kimley-Horn, an engineering consulting firm. Based on the firm’s findings, no concerning or notable traffic changes appeared to be expected from the development.
Neither flooding nor fire safety from the development would be issues, said Kinsey. Lighting from the development spilling onto other properties also would not be a concern, he said.
But above all else, Kinsey said, as a landowner in compliance with zoning codes, he could not entirely understand the term repeatedly used by planning and county commissioners, who described the new development as not fitting in with a “rural character.”
“Whatever it is here, I can’t find it defined in the code,” Kinsey said. “I think it’s totally subjective.”
Thirteen locals spoke at the podium, each expressing their reasoning for disapproving of the new development.
“I don’t think our community, as voiced over and over again, sees value in this business,” said one local resident.
As each public commenter spoke, many of the same recurring concerns were voiced from previous meetings. Traffic safety, for instance, remained a common issue.
“Its absurd to think that this is going to be a safe intersection tomorrow once that store is built,” said another local.
Some of those offering comment also alleged a conflict of interest in Kinsely’s evidence. Because Vic Romano, the appraiser assessing the property value, also worked for the bank financing the proposed development, an objective evaluation could not be made, some said.
Others criticisms, once again, framed the new development as not of the “rural character,” or generally as an eyesore.
“Would you buy a property that is smack dab, next door or across the street from the business that Mr. Kinsey is proposing to Put up?” one person asked the commissioners. “I’m gonna wager to guess that you would not.”
Locals who offered comments were met with applause from the attendees.
After the public comments closed and Kinsley made some responses to the points raised, the commissioners voted unanimously to issue their written decision on July 8.
