Youth-camp organizers sue county commission

Youth-camp organizers sue county commission

December 4, 2001

By Jim Mimiaga
Journal Staff Writer

Organizers of a proposed at-risk youth camp near Mancos are suing the Montezuma County Commission for denying them a permit to operate.

Last October, the commissioners denied the high-impact permit for ASPIRE, a therapeutic wilderness camp for troubled youth planned on private land at the foot of Mesa Verde National Park.

During three emotional public hearings on the matter, neighbors discussed fears for their safety if a client escaped. The commission agreed, saying that the county planning regulations allowed them to deny the permit application on the grounds the camp would adversely threaten the "health, safety and welfare" of the surrounding community.

But plaintiffs Scot Davis and Lillian Ramey assert in the complaint served last week that the county land-use code standards are not sufficiently specific for the evaluation of high-impact permits.

"The oral decision announced by the board was not based upon any identifiable standard in the code or elsewhere," the complaint states.

Davis and Ramey, and their attorney, Jon Lewis Kelly, state that the earlier recommendation for denial by the planning commission also "did not provide a basis for its decision."

Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim, the land-use code is not applied consistently, lacks clarity and, in the case of their application’s denial, constitutes a violation of their constitutional property rights.

"In denying the Plaintiff’s High Impact Permit application, the Board abused its discretion, exceeded its jurisdiction, and applied an erroneous legal standard," the complaint said.

ASPIRE planned to offer outdoor recreation, team-building, and counseling to non-court-ordered youth during 15-week semesters. A ropes course and boarding cabins were also planned for the business.

Commissioner Gene Story said Monday the commissioners were obligated to deny the permit because it would jeopardize the safety of residents. Other concerns were a road easement to the property that did not meet county specifications, limited access to commercial water, and poor reaction time for law enforcement to the rural area.

"We could have approved it with conditions because perhaps those problems could have been worked out but it was denied because you cannot mitigate the safety and welfare issue," Story said. "You cannot keep these kids from running away."

Proponents touted intensive screening to weed out violent offenders and said the youth would be chosen based on their willingness to be there and would be monitored to prevent escape. They said the road would be minimally used because the program includes multi-week trips with youth away from the base site. Water could be hauled in if a commercial tap could not be obtained.

ASPIRE argued that the commission never issued findings on the reasons for the denial. On Monday, after they had been served with the complaint, the commissioners approved a findings document.

The findings conclude that "troubled youth, with a new group every 15 weeks, (who are) free to run away and go to the neighbors’ houses for whatever purposes is frightening to residents in the neighborhood."

The plaintiffs believe the permit denial was based on emotion, rather than the land-use code and high-impact permit requirements, which they claim in their complaint amounts to an "unlawful haphazard or arbitrary zoning scheme."