Twenty-second Judicial District Court Judge Todd Plewe ruled in favor of the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners in the latest court battle involving a long-standing Dollar General civil case.
Plew wrote the commissioners’ second denial of a high-impact permit is sustained by competent evidence, concluding the developer was afforded due process and the Montezuma County Land-Use Code was properly applied.
Leaf Properties, Inc., wishes to build a dollar store on a rural property located on the southeast corner of Colorado Highway 145 and County Road N between Dolores and Cortez.
Through attorney Andrew Peters, the company claimed the quasi-judicial actions involving the commissioners’ denial of a high-impact permit overstepped its statutory power.
Peters requested summary judgment in his client’s favor, which Plewe denied Wednesday in a detailed and thorough order filed with the 22nd Judicial District Court.
Peters said in an email to The Journal his client intends to appeal the decision immediately. He said an appeal generally takes one to two years in his experience, involving transferring the case materials to the Colorado Court of Appeals, preparing briefs and allowing time for the court to hear oral arguments in Denver.
The application received an outpouring of public opposition, but Plewe wrote most community criticism during hearings in 2025 was not considered to be “competent evidence,” a term used during the judicial review process.
Plewe also did not rely on all seven findings made by the county to uphold the denial. He concluded the first basis stood on its own: the development could generate significant negative traffic impacts.
County officials argued the dollar store would lure an estimated 678 vehicle trips per day, contributing heavy use to an already dangerous intersection.
They cited many public comments from past public hearings stating more traffic increases danger for residents. Plewe upheld the commissioners’ decision to side with lay testimony over the traffic study submitted by Leaf Properties.
Many residents voiced disagreement with the traffic study submitted by the developer, saying it gathered data during a lower-volume traffic month of February.
“The BOCC is not bound by the expert report. There is more than enough competent evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the BOCC that, ‘This additional traffic volume at this location constitutes a significant adverse impact for the area and the surrounding properties,’” the judge wrote.
Plewe also addressed several of the county’s remaining findings for denying the permit.
Among those arguments, the county suggested a dollar store in rural Montezuma County, rather than an urban area, showed no transition or pattern from urban to rural. They also argued the development was not compatible with surrounding agricultural and large-lot residential uses, and that the dollar store and its traffic would devalue neighboring properties. Plewe said those arguments did not provide a basis for denial.
Another argument was that the dollar store increased fire danger because it would locate on the edge of the Cortez and Dolores fire districts, where response times are longer. However, Plewe said that conclusion was speculative after the fire department withdrew its objection and the developer agreed to mitigate the risk.
Plewe also rejected the county’s argument that the project failed to preserve the area’s “rural character,” writing the term is not defined in the Land-Use Code.
“Dollar stores, which now dot the landscape of rural America, are a characteristic of rural America in 2026,” Plewe wrote.
The dispute dates back to January 2024, when Leaf Properties submitted its first high-impact permit application. Commissioners denied the application in April 2024. Plewe later overturned that decision because the county failed to issue written findings and violated the developer’s due process rights, sending the matter back for another public hearing. After new hearings in June and July 2025, commissioners again voted 2-1 to deny the permit. Commissioner Jim Candelaria voted for approving the application.
Plewe wrote that while the county’s Land-Use Code is contradictory in places and contains inconsistencies, a judge’s role is to exercise judicial restraint and avoid delving into matters of public policy.
“Arguably, the code is poor public policy; however, the court must set aside the temptation to decide this case on issues other than facts and the law,” the order stated.
awatson@the-journal.com
