By Gail Binkly

Backed by the fact that surrounding property owners had all zoned their land for agricultural uses, the Montezuma County Planning Commission voted 9-0 Thursday night not to allow a manufactured-housing development on 80 acres near Yellow Jacket.

Their recommendation now goes to the county commissioners, who will make a final decision regarding the proposed 20-lot subdivision by Don Etnier on land owned by Wayne Martin.

Cheering and applause broke out among the audience of roughly 40 after the planning group passed Joe Arado’s motion to deny the proposal "in view of the fact that we have proceeded with a zoning process, and all the property around this parcel has been zoned agricultural."

The case was regarded as the first real test of "LIZ," Landowner-Initiated Zoning, the controversial voluntary-zoning plan adopted by the county in 1998.

Etnier, a local developer who specializes in manufactured housing, had sought approval for a 20-lot subdivision with AR 3-9 zoning (agricultural-residential, with tracts of 3-9 acres each). The subdivision was to be located on an 80-acre parcel one mile west of Highway 666 and just north of Road Z, in the overwhelmingly rural community of Yellow Jacket.

Etnier maintained that his development, with lots costing $23,000 to $32,000 and package deals with manufactured homes costing $75,000 to $100,000, would offer housing for average wage-earners in Montezuma County.

He presented data showing that the average salary in Montezuma County in 1996 was $19,336, and said the average two-wage local family can afford a home only in the $70,000-$90,000 range. He also offered five letters of support for his proposal, three from real-estate brokers who wrote that they see the need for more affordable housing in the county.

Likewise, Linda Willis in the audience spoke in favor of Etnier’s proposal, saying local wages frequently won’t support rural-home ownership.

"Wages in this area are very low compared to what stick-built housing costs," she said. "What I hear is a lot of denial -- ‘I’ve got my piece of ground and I’m going to keep everybody else from having a piece of the American dream.’"

But both audience and board members questioned whether the homes would be all that affordable when the higher prices of rural utilities, commuting costs, and an annual homeowners-association fee for road maintenance and plowing were added in.

"Why take 20 families all the way to Yellow Jacket, so they have to come 17 miles to Cortez, when there’s all kinds of land between here that’s already, if you’ll excuse the expression, shot to hell?" asked Wilson Bradfield, who lives near the proposed subdivision on the east side of Highway 666.

"Let’s fill up places closer to town so people won’t be polluting back and forth," he continued. "It’s a lot more appropriate to have subdivisions of this size closer to an established center of civilization. ... This is the Durangoization of our local area," he added, to applause.

Etnier said he had sought land in other locations but that the price was usually "jacked up," and that he was limited by what was actually on the market.

Planning-commission member Arado, however, said he found it difficult to believe this was the only appropriate parcel in the county for such a development.

Etnier explained that infrastructure factors are a consideration, too, such as availability of water and electricity.

"It still couldn’t be the last parcel," Arado said.

"I didn’t find anything addressing this issue in the land-use code," Etnier argued.

"We’re following the code, but we’re also using judgment concerning the development of the county in a sensible manner," Arado said. "That’s why we have a planning commission."

Etnier had brought a written response to some concerns the planning commission had raised at a previous meeting, including effects on the local school, and fire and police protection for the subdivision.

Cindy Smart, principal of the Pleasant View School, told Etnier it has room for 100 students and has only 21 now, Etnier reported; the project would be just 3 miles from the local firehouse; and Sheriff Joey Chavez said the subdivision would be "an asset to Montezuma County" and would be affordable for sheriff’s deputies. Etnier included letters from Smart and Chavez.

But some 20 people rose, one after another, to speak against the development proposal. Their concerns centered on several issues:

-- Dogs. Although Etnier said the subdivision covenants would include a requirement that all animals be kept on the owner’s lot and under control, neighbors voiced skepticism about how effective such a rule would be, and said they didn’t want dogs running wild and chasing livestock.

"He can put all the covenants he wants on it," said Paul White, whose land lies east of the tract in question. "If you ever tried to explain to a small child that you just killed their dog, you don’t like it."

Bradfield agreed. "It affects livestock and wildlife," he said. "There’s a lot of deer out there, and the deer won’t be there any more."

Effects on farming operations. Area resident Joe Mahaffey said he sometimes is baling at 1 and 2 in the morning, and the sound can be heard for a considerable distance.

Abdel Barrada, another landowner, said he sometimes has to spray chemicals on his private property, and "if there are 20 families out there, some are going to object."

"We’re going to need fences all over the place" to deal with dogs and wandering children, Barrada added.

-- Septic problems. With 20 new septic systems in place on the tract, which is higher than several of the surrounding parcels, there may be seepage onto lower areas, several persons said.

"Since my property contains a reservoir and low-lying areas," said Sidney Knuckles, reading a prepared statement, "the seepage will surely find its way into these areas, presenting both a health hazard and rendering the land unfit or unusable."

Etnier said the septic systems would all have to meet county standards.

-- Incompatibility with the neighborhood. All the parcels surrounding the tract have been zoned for large-scale agriculture, with the exception of one that is going to be, said county planner Karen Welch. Five owners designated their property AR 35+, while five others chose the designation A 80.

Under LIZ rules, owners can choose and automatically receive designations for tracts over 10 acres, but smaller tracts require approval for that zoning.

Kathy Yale said she had lived in the area 2 1/2 years after moving from Maryland.

"I moved 2200 miles to be in a rural area," she said. "If we put all these trailers in, I might as well move back to Maryland."

Longtime Yellow Jacket resident Wade Wilson said it was "past time to stop the rape, pillage and plunder of farm and ranch land for housing."

"We’ve got to have food for people to eat," he said.

His mother, Esther Wilson, echoed those sentiments. "There are places closer to town," she said, "rock piles that won’t raise anything anyway. It just isn’t suitable."

Claudia Clemens, a five-year resident raised in California farming country, said she knew how hard it is to make a living farming and "how tempting it is to sell, no matter what the intended use," but nevertheless called the development "ill-advised, short-sighted and self-serving."

"This is a way for people who don’t care about our community to make a buck and move on at our ever-lasting expense," she said, recalling the fertile farming valleys and orchards in California that were "bulldozed and burned in front of our eyes" when she was young.

"Truck farms, orchards, farms, alfalfa fields were plowed under and paved over," she said. "It is irretrievably, irreversibly lost. I can’t see this is what we need to have happen in Yellow Jacket," Clemens concluded, to applause.

Etnier and his attorney, Rick Beisel, cited a new state law that says local governments can’t impose any "discretionary condition" upon a land-use approval, but County Administrator Tom Weaver said the board was not acting arbitrarily.