Thursday, May 10, 2012

Pagosa Springs SUN Newspaper: The “Village At Wolf Creek” Archives



 I was reviewing some old articles when I had the idea, that these news articles, along with a few opinion pieces and letters to the editor should be easily available for folks who may want a better understanding of the current controversy.

I have striven to remain within copyright guidelines and each article is linked to the full Pagosa Springs SUN story.



Pagosa Springs SUN Newspaper

The “Village At Wolf Creek” Archives
{ going back to 2000 }



====================
2011



Nov 18, 2011 ... BoCC to consider ‘Village’ EIS letter at Monday meeting

“The Board of County Commissioners will hold a special meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 21, in the commissioners’ meeting room at the county courthouse.
New business:
A. Request approval to submit a letter to Village at Wolf Creek regarding EIS.”
~ ~ ~ 

Pagosa Springs SUN Newspaper 102211
Oct 22, 2011... County voices concerns over ‘Village’ impacts
By Randi Pierce

“Stating an interest in ensuring that socioeconomic impacts are adequately addressed in an in-process Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning the proposed land exchange for the Village at Wolf Creek, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners, on Monday, approved a letter directed to the U.S. Forest Service. . .”
~ ~ ~

Sep 15, 2011 ... Forest Service to lead ‘Village’ field trip
By Mike Blakeman

On Tuesday, Sept. 20, Divide District Ranger Tom Malecek will lead a field trip open to the public to view and discuss the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange environmental analysis.
~ ~ ~

Jun 8, 2011... BoCC makes ‘monumental’ move
By Randi Pierce

“In what was referred to as a “monumental” move Monday, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution that invokes their statutory right to be a coordinating agency in processes involving federal government agencies with jurisdiction over Archuleta County and its resources.
According to County Attorney Todd Starr, being a coordinating agency will help Archuleta County to be involved on a deeper level in projects such as the proposed Village at Wolf Creek and efforts to protect the endangered Pagosa Skyrocket flower. . . ”
~ ~ ~

May 5, 2011 ... Notice of Exchange Proposal
Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange
Rio Grande National Forest
Mineral County, Colorado

“Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, is considering an exchange of land and interests in land with Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (the non-federal party), under the authority of the Act of March 20, 1922, as amended (16 U.S.C. 485, 486), Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1716), and the Act of August 20, 1988 (43 U.S.C. 1716). . .”
~ ~ ~ 

May 4, 2011 ... USFS holds ‘Village’ open house
By Randi Pierce

“A series of open houses held last week by the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center for the purpose of soliciting feedback for an environmental analysis involving the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land exchange showed little in the way of new concerns about the project. . .”
~ ~ ~

Apr 25, 2011 ... Input sought on ‘Village’ land exchange
By Mike Blakeman

“The San Luis Valley Public Lands Center is seeking public input for the environmental analysis of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land exchange, including during an open house in Pagosa Springs on April 26.
The proposal involves exchanging approximately 204 acres of federal land for approximately 178 acres of private land owned by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). . .”
~ ~ ~

Mar 9, 2011 ... Forest Service to process ‘Village’ land swap
By Randi Pierce

“The Rio Grande National Forest has completed a feasibility analysis for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange and has entered into an agreement with Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) to process their land exchange proposal. . .”
~ ~ ~

Mar 2, 2011 ... CDC board says ‘no’ to director’s resignation
By Jim McQuiggin

“On Monday, Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation Executive Director Steve Vassallo submitted a letter of resignation to the CDC board — a resignation the board ultimately rejected.
{...}
Later, it was revealed that Vassallo had travelled to Texas for a meeting with Billy Jo “Red” McCombs (developer for the Village at Wolf Creek), coming away with a $1,000 sponsorship for the CDC’s Great Golden Retriever event. . .”
~ ~ ~

Feb 17, 2011 ... Long gone

“Dear Editor: The article on the Village at Wolf Creek in the most recent edition of The SUN perpetuates the discussion about this proposed development which has been in the news since 2004, if not before. 

The economic impact of this proposal is usually kicked under the rug. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement prepared a few years ago by the developer scrupulously avoided this subject. Perhaps the developer did not have satisfactory answers to questions such as these: . . .”
~ ~ ~

February 14, 2011 ... Village at Wolf Creek ... ‘a question of when’
By Jim McQuiggin

“Despite local attitudes that are as diverse as they are fractious, Steve Vassallo, executive director of the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation, has been leading the charge in advocating for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek development.
Speaking up at an economic development summit in Durango last month and again last week following a meeting with District 3 U.S. Congressman Scott Tipton, Vassallo stated that the Village at Wolf Creek was a priority for economic development in Archuleta County. . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2010

Nov 22, 2010 ... Village at Wolf Creek developers to host public meeting

“Village at Wolf Creek developers will appear in Pagosa Springs Thursday to explain key details of their revised project plan, including discussion of the proposed 207-acre land exchange they say is critical to the project’s success. . .”
~ ~ ~

Aug 4, 2010 ... ‘Village’ developer offers new land swap
By Randi Pierce

“The proposed Village at Wolf Creek has taken on another possible form, this time with a modification of the sought-after land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service.
{...}
“We made a few minor changes to our land exchange, where we’re not giving away as much land as we formerly were,” said Dusty Hicks, a broker involved with the development planned by Billy Joe “Red” McCombs. . .”
~ ~ ~

Feb 24, 2010 ... Rep. Salazar holds ‘Village’ roundtable
By Randi Pierce

“The proposed Village at Wolf Creek was the topic of discussion Feb. 17 at a roundtable hosted by U.S. Rep. John Salazar in Alamosa.
Salazar held the meeting to open discussion between entities for and against the proposed Village project to see if any consensus could be reached to help him make the decision on whether or not to carry a bill for congressional approval of a land exchange for the project. . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2009

Dec 23, 2009 ... No ‘Village’ letter from Pagosa
By Jim McQuiggin

“Developers for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek will not have a letter of support from the Pagosa Springs Town Council following a decision by council at its December mid-month meeting last Thursday.
The letter, had it been accepted by council, would have gone to Rep. John Salazar and would have signaled support for a proposed land exchange between Village at Wolf Creek developers and the U.S. Forest Service. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 16, 2009 ... BoCC comments on Village
By Randi Pierce

“The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners rendered a decision on a proposed congressional land swap for the controversial Village at Wolf Creek during its regular meeting, Tuesday.
The BoCC passed a series of four motions concerning the latest proposed plan for the Village (Plan B), three of which passed with 2-1 votes that left Commissioner Clifford Lucero as the board’s sole voice of opposition. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 10, 2009 ... No legislative process
By Karl Isberg

“The controversy over the proposed Village at Wolf Creek continues. Few issues draw as much attention in Pagosa Country as this proposed project in Mineral County, on the other side of the Divide.
{...}
What we are more interested in are the projects here in Pagosa Country that come along regularly — proposals for large-scale subdivisions, for example, some of which are adjacent to major waterways and/or overlap significant wildlife migration corridors — that are subjected to public scrutiny via the planning and approval processes in town and county. . ."  
~ ~ ~


December 7, 2009. BoCC to consider Village at Wolf Creek statement

The Board of County Commissioners will meet at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 8, in the commissioners’ meeting room at the courthouse.
{...}
New business:
A. Requests the board to review and consider making a statement regarding their position on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Development and direct staff to write a letter — Greg Schulte.”
~ ~ ~

Dec 3, 2009 ... Good idea?

Dear Editor: Save Red McCombs from himself. Red has been involved in two ski areas in southern Colorado, Cuchara Valley and Wolf Creek. Cuchara Valley failed. Among the reasons was lack of snow. Red’s proposed Village at Wolf Creek will fail, too. Among the reasons will be lack of oxygen.   Jim Milstein
~ ~ ~

Dec 3, 2009 ... BoCC to decide on Village endorsement
By Randi Pierce

“A decision on whether or not to endorse a congressionally-approved land exchange for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek is slated to be made at the Dec. 8 meeting of the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 2, 2009 ... Council considers Village stance
By Jim McQuiggin

“Meeting twice in as many weeks to consider drafting a letter of support for a proposed legislative land swap for the Village at Wolf Creek, the Pagosa Springs Town Council stalled just shy of going forward with the letter, choosing instead to wait to meet with the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~

Nov 12, 2009 ... Pro land exchange

“Dear Editor:  Following is a copy of a letter sent to all interested govermental parties.
The Builders Association of Pagosa Springs, a non-profit 501(C)(6) affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Colorado Association of Home Builders (CAHB) promotes smart growth and engagement in active participation in the regulatory process of Archuleta County to ensure that the housing industry remains a priority. . .”
~ ~ ~

Nov 5, 2009 ... Developer holds ‘Village’ public meeting
By Randi Pierce

“Developers of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek held a public forum in Pagosa Springs Oct. 29, another chapter in the story of the controversial Village.
The forum, said by developers to be one of the best attended among those held recently, followed similar meetings in Creede and South Fork earlier in October. . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 29, 2009 ... Village at Wolf Creek public forum tonight
By James Robinson

“Village at Wolf Creek developers will appear in Pagosa Springs tonight to explain key details of their revised project plan, including discussion of the proposed 207-acre land exchange they say is critical to the project’s success. . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 22, 2009 ... BoCC to host ‘Village’ public forum Oct. 29

“The Archuleta County Board County of Commissioners will host a public forum to provide information and answer questions regarding the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 1, 2009 ... ‘Village’ public meeting to be scheduled in October
By James Robinson

“Archuleta County residents will soon have an opportunity to learn more about an arguably new and improved Village At Wolf Creek, following commissioner action Wednesday.
In discussions with key staffers representing Sen. Mark Udall, Sen. Michael Bennett, Rep. John Salazar and Village representative Dusty Hicks, the group agreed to schedule an Archuleta County public meeting within a month that would detail the developer’s revised plans to Pagosa Springs area residents. . .”
~ ~ ~

Sep 10, 2009 ... The Village, or our village?
By Karl Isberg

“Just when you thought it was safe to go out … it’s back! The proposed Village at Wolf Creek has reared its head in a remodeled guise, and there is dust in the air as proponents and opponents muster their forces.
You remember The Village, don’t you? The first proposal was a massive, 2,000-plus unit extravaganza set next to Wolf Creek Ski Area — a proposal opposed by nearly everyone who would not directly benefit from its success. . ."
~ ~ ~

Sep 10, 2009 ... Plan relies on successful land exchange
By James Robinson

“A revised development plan from Village at Wolf Creek developers depicts a scaled back project — 2,172 units down to 491 units in phase one —and village point men say the revision, coupled with a proposed land exchange, will allow for development compatible with the ski area and a softer environmental impact on the Alberta Park area. They also say development, of some kind, is imminent.. . .”
~ ~ ~

Aug 26, 2009 ... ‘Village’ developers seek federal help
By James Robinson

“According to local and federal officials, it appears Village at Wolf Creek developers may be trying an end-run around the public by seeking congressional support for another land exchange that would bypass the public process and ultimately and arguably ease the permitting and approval processes necessary for construction to begin.
According to Edward Stern, deputy press secretary for Congressman John Salazar, . . .”
~ ~ ~

Feb 18, 2009 ... USFS unplugs the Village
By James Robinson

“. . . Forest Service staff announced they were disbanding the environmental impact statement team and halting analysis of the access to the controversial development.
“We have not received a new application from Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) requesting access across the Forest, so we released the analysis team members,” ..., deputy forest supervisor for the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center.
{...} 
“The bottom line is we’ve received nothing in writing from them (the developers). We had a team assembled with staff from all over the state and all over the country. They had other jobs, . . .”
~ ~ ~

Jan 29, 2009 ... Year in review continues:

“Village lawsuit settled. The developers of the Village at Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek Ski Area owners settled a lawsuit, closing a four-year-old court case regarding the development of the controversial resort. U.S. District Judge John Kane dismissed the case Tuesday, and the settlement terms remained secret.
“All terms of the settlement are totally confidential under contractual obligations,” said developer Bob Honts. . .”
~ ~ ~

Jan 22, 2009 ... 2008 in review

“February:  Village at Wolf Creek. Area conservation groups declared victory in their battle against the proposed Village at Wolf Creek, when the United States Forest Service and Village developers agreed to go back to the drawing board and complete a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for the controversial development. . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2008

Nov 20, 2008... Send concerns

“Dear Editor: Horseback Riders for a Wild San Juan Mountains and Colorado Wild would like you to e-mail your concerns about the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. This project, which the developer describes as a “world class mountain resort and village” to be the “premier ski and recreation resort in America” was originally proposed as a city of up to 10,000 people at the top of Wolf Creek Pass. . .”   B.C.
~ ~ ~

Oct 15, 2008... Village:
Open house, no plans
By James Robinson

“Despite maps depicting lynx habitat and wetlands, aerial photographs, flow charts on timetable and process, and highway department engineering renderings, detailed developer plans for the Village at Wolf Creek were notably absent during a Forest Service-sponsored open house held in Pagosa Springs Oct. 9, and the omission of key project details left many attendees wondering what to expect next. . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 9, 2008 ... Open house for ‘Village’ scoping process
By James Robinson

“A new public scoping process has begun for the Village at Wolf Creek — the Wolf Creek Access Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — and Pagosa Springs area residents can attend an open house-style meeting tonight at 5 p.m. in the Pagosa Springs Community Center.
The scoping and analysis processes are a response to an application from Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture seeking transportation and utility corridors across National Forest System lands to their private property slated for construction of the controversial project. . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 3, 2008 ... The Village
Dear Editor:
“The RGNF is holding an open house Oct. 9 {...} concerning the large development called 'The Village at Wolf Creek.' ...

Because there is no detailed information, the public is being asked to comment blindly on a proposal that we have no basis for analyzing or understanding. We do not know the size, scope or the pace of development. The public cannot make meaningful, informed comments without comprehensive information on the details of this revised project development.. . .”

~ ~ ~

Aug 14, 2008... New plan for the Village?
By James Robinson

“... Forest Service announced Monday it had accepted an application for road construction and property access from Village at Wolf Creek developers.

The new application and initiation of a new environmental analysis process are the result of a legal settlement involving Colorado Wild, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, the Forest Service and village developers — Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. The groups sued the Forest Service in October 2006, challenging the agency’s decision to authorize construction of two access roads across public land . . .”

~ ~ ~

Jun 5, 2008 ... Village settle court case
By Sarah O. Smith Staff Writer

“The developers ... and Wolf Creek Ski Area owners have settled their lawsuit, closing the four-year old court case regarding the development of the controversial resort. U.S. District Judge John Kane dismissed the case Tuesday, ... 

“... All terms of the settlement are totally confidential under contractual obligations,” said developer Bob Honts ... want to develop on a 287.5 acre parcel of land adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, would consist of a resort town capable of housing as many as 10,000 people.
~ ~ ~

Mar 13, 2008 ... Village at Wolf Creek.

“Resolve that the Democratic Party opposes the Village at Wolf Creek development (Precinct 1).”
~ ~ ~

Feb 21, 2008 ... Back to square one for Village at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson

“... United States Forest Service and Village developers agreed to go back to the drawing board and complete a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for the controversial development
...
said Ryan Demmy Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild in a press release. “After nine years of false starts, behind-closed-door dealings and tainted analysis, the public will finally get a fair review of the Village’s thus far unregulated impacts.” . . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2007

Oct 11, 2007 ... Court tells Village developers no roads, for now
By Chuck McGuire

“For the second time in as many weeks, a federal court ruling has stymied developers of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. On Thursday, Oct. 4, U.S. District Court Judge John Kane halted Texas billionaire developer B.J. “Red” McCombs’ plans to begin road construction to his controversial resort development, this year. 

If allowed to proceed, the creation of two roads crossing United States Forest Service land would connect the village site — a 287.5-acre private inholding — with U.S. 160. . .”
~ ~ ~

Sep 27, 2007 ... Court rules against ‘Village’ developers
By James Robinson

{...} the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against village developers and upheld a district court ruling that overturned Mineral County’s approval of the project.
{...}
...ultimately voiding Mineral County’s final plan and final plat approval of the project... decision follows in the wake of the developer’s appeal to Kuenhold’s District Court decision...
{...}
However, neither the 12th District Court, nor the Colorado Court of Appeals have seen the access question in quite the same light. In 2005, Kuenhold ruled  . . .”
~ ~ ~

Jun 7, 2007 ... ‘Village’ injunction could continue
By James Robinson 
... U.S District Court Magistrate ... to extend injunction ... prevented construction of the proposed Village . . .
Wednesday, West recommended that Kane continue the injunction...
... In their lawsuit, Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council charge the Forest Service with failing to address the impacts of the village as a whole by issuing an environmental impact statement focusing solely on the impacts associated with the construction of the two access roads. . .”
~ ~ ~

Friends of Wolf Creek to host lecture, fund-raiser
By James Robinson

“As part of its ongoing fund-raising efforts, Friends of Wolf Creek will host a lecture Feb. 27 on the physical effects and medical implications of living at high altitude. . .”
~ ~ ~

Jan 11, 2007 ... 2006, news in review

“The U.S. Forest Service upheld its decision to grant the developer of the Village at Wolf Creek two separate access roads to its 287.5-acre inholding in the Rio Grande National Forest. The Forest Service decision was questioned by nonprofit groups and legislators, including U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, who asked USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong to investigate allegations of improprieties in the Forest Service's evaluation and decision on the final Environmental Impact Statement, regarding the access roads.”
~ ~ ~


====================
2006

Nov 30, 2006 ... Developer says 'no' to grooming
By James Robinson

“... Wolf Creek Ski Area has been ordered to cease and desist from grooming the Cross Country Nordic Track System by demand of the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. . ."
{...}
While the ski area's Web content places the onus of the closure solely on the shoulders of village developers. . .”

~ ~ ~

Oct 26, 2006 ... Environmental groups file 'Village' lawsuits
By James Robinson

“Two area environmental groups filed a lawsuit ... challenging the United States Forest Service's environmental impact statement and record of decision regarding the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
... the thrust of the lawsuit is twofold.

First, the lawsuit alleges the entire EIS and record of decision is illegal and inadequate because the Forest Service failed to address the impacts of the village as a whole.

And secondly, the suit alleges Forest Supervisor Peter Clark unlawfully modified the record of decision "making it easier for the developer to begin construction.". . .”
~ ~ ~

Oct 19, 2006 ... U.S. Sen. Salazar conducts public meeting on 'Village'
James Robinson

“More than a 100 area residents turned out Monday at the Pagosa Springs Community Center to hear U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar speak about local issues, including fielding questions from the audience regarding the Village at Wolf Creek.

Of those who questioned Salazar, none spoke in favor of the Village, and their concerns ranged from water issues, to issues of public safety, energy, and severe environmental degradation. . .”
~ ~ ~

Sep 14, 2006 ... Inspector General: No wrongdoing at Village
By James Robinson

“Plans for the Village at Wolf Creek, a 10,000 person, luxury resort village slated for construction near the top of Wolf Creek Pass and near the base of the Wolf Creek Ski Area moved one step closer to fruition ...

After a multi-month inquiry, Fong stated in a letter to U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar that her office had found no evidence of improper conduct or political pressure regarding United States Forest Service decisions pertaining to the controversial village development. . .”
~ ~ ~

August 10, 2006 ... Thoughts follow a flyover
By Chuck McGuire

{...}
{...}
... 20 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service suddenly and inexplicably reversed its original decision to deny a land swap, thus facilitating the manifestation of the village concept. We know that, despite overwhelming public opposition, Mineral County approved the scheme in its current form, even while developers had no legitimate, legally-required highway access to the site. And, we've recently seen the Forest Service approve developer access across public lands, while refusing to consider the environmental consequences of the venture as a whole, instead focusing on the relatively minor effects of access alone. . .”

~ ~ ~

July 22, 2006 ... Developers encourage support of Village at Wolf Creek project
By James Robinson

“Village at Wolf Creek developers met in South Fork Saturday with Mineral County elected officials, including two Mineral County commissioners and the Mineral County sheriff, South Fork civic and business leaders and area residents, to rally support for their massive, luxury resort community slated for construction on Wolf Creek Pass adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~

May 18, 2006 ... Salazar asks for investigation, halt to Village at Wolf Creek process
By James Robinson

“With an environmental impact statement process clouded with allegations of collusion and questions of whether undue political influence was exerted by Village at Wolf Creek developers, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar. . .
{...}
In his letter to Fong,  Salazar wrote: "I request that you conduct an investigation to . . ."

Salazar said his request stems from the EIS, which, the senator argues, fails to consider the impact of the development as a whole and focuses exclusively on the impact of an existing right-of-way. . .”

~ ~ ~

April 6, 2006 ... USFS approves access for Village at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson

“On Monday, the United States Forest Service released its much anticipated final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding access to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development....

"The major flaw with the document is that the Forest Service refuses to analyze the impacts of the Village," Bidwell said, despite the document's acknowledgment that the Forest Service is charged with protecting public interests, and ensuring compatibility with the surrounding national forest and the Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~

March 16, 2006 ... Village faceoff date set
By James Robinson

“A faceoff between state, federal and local legislators, federal agencies, Village at Wolf Creek developers, and representatives from the Wolf Creek Ski Area is scheduled for April 7 in Creede.
The meeting follows a move by state Rep. Mark Larson to bring the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development under greater legislative scrutiny and was scheduled by Jon Boyd, president of the Upper Rio Grande Economic Development Council . . .”
~ ~ ~

March 9, 2006 ... Wolf Creek development hits home hard

By U.S. Rep. John Salazar
{...}
. . . Village at Wolf Creek will result in growth, but it's not the kind of responsible growth that will be good for the larger community.

Responsible development is done in a way that enhances, not dries up resources - like water - which keep our economy running. Responsible development involves long-term economic growth plans, not flash-in-the pan ...
{...}
The new Wolf Creek development concerns me for the same reasons - a hope of new jobs and income twisted into a nightmare of contaminated water and communities fighting with each other.. . .”


Mar 2, 2006 ... Larson, Isgar sponsor Village resolution
By James Robinson

“Following a push by 59th District Rep. Mark Larson, state lawmakers are reviewing a resolution that, if passed, would open the dialogue on the controversial Village at Wolf Creek, . . .”

The resolution, sponsored jointly by Larson and state Sen. Jim Isgar, hit the House floor Monday and follows in the wake of allegations of collusion between the United States Forest Service, Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (the project developers) and Mineral County officials, in addition to allegations by Durango-based Colorado Wild that those same entities violated the Colorado Open Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act. . .”
~ ~ ~

January 26, 2006 ... Village at Wolf Creek inspires legal actions
By Chuck McGuire

“{...}
On Tuesday, Jan. 17, Federal Magistrate David L. West of the U.S. District Court in Durango gave the U.S. Forest Service just two weeks to fully comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that project opponent Colorado Wild had made over the past year. 

Colorado Wild ultimately sued the Forest Service in June 2005, seeking to acquire documents detailing communication between the agency and village developers, Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. Until Tuesday, the Forest Service had only partially complied with the court-ordered releases . . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2005

Dec 15, 2005 ... Village at Wolf Creek legal wranglings continue
By James Robinson

“... wranglings between the developers of the Village at Wolf Creek and the Wolf Creek Ski Corporation is unfolding following a number of recent rulings by a Durango magistrate.

The Dec. 1 rulings, issued by Federal Magistrate David L. West, stem from disagreements, claims and counterclaims {...} regarding a series of contracts ...
{...}
In other related rulings, West recommended denying the developer's motion to bring father and son owners of the ski area, Kingsbury and Davey Pitcher, respectively, into the lawsuit, and not to honor the village attorney's request to extend the discovery, or fact finding period. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 1, 2005 ... Salazar takes stand on Village at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson

“After numerous inquiries, conversations with the developers and written responses from the U.S. Forest Service to a series of questions, U.S. Rep. John T. Salazar is voicing strong opposition to the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.

. . . the congressman said: "I've taken the time to meet with the involved parties, ask questions, and gather information about the proposed development. With the Forest Service's latest answers, it has become even clearer the proposal would require many special concessions, without the promise of any real gain for the greater community." . . .”
~ ~ ~

November 3, 2005 ... Developers ask court to reconsider Village at Wolf Creek decision
James Robinson

“Attorneys for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek have filed a motion asking 12th District Court Judge O. John Kuenhold to reconsider his Oct. 13 decision on access to the proposed village via Forest Road 391.

Kuenhold ruled on Oct. 13 after hearing arguments in a consolidated lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs Wolf Creek Ski Corporation, Colorado Wild Inc. and San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. . .”
~ ~ ~

October 20, 2005 ... Sides differ on impact of Village at Wolf Creek decision
By James Robinson

“With both sides claiming victory, it might be difficult to determine the true state of affairs following a recent judge's ruling on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.

The ruling came Oct. 13 when 12th Judicial District Judge O. John Kuenhold struck at the very core of Mineral County's approval of the project's final plat by stating Forest Service Road 391 did not constitute meaningful year-round access to a development consisting of 2,200 residential units, more than 500,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 10,000 residents. . .”
~ ~ ~

August 25, 2005 ... Commissioners consider Wolf Creek Village, gas wells
By James Robinson

“The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners has formally approved a resolution stating its opposition to the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
{...}
The current plan involves more than 2,000 residential units and more than 200,000 square feet of retail and commercial space all at an elevation of about 10,000 feet and about 30 miles east of Pagosa Springs.

Part of the resolution recommended that a regional task force be created to further address issues and concerns. Although the commissioners did not elaborate on their role in that endeavor. . .”
~ ~ ~

June 30, 2005 ... Suit filed against USFS over Village at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson

“Colorado Wild, ... opposed to the Village at Wolf Creek, filed two lawsuits last Friday against the U.S. Forest Service over their handling of issues surrounding the proposed village.

Travis Stills, an attorney for the group, said the lawsuits, filed in federal district court in Denver, are meant to push the U.S. Forest Service to act in the public interest.

He said the first lawsuit is a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed to combat the Forest Service's alleged "long standing practice of stonewalling Colorado Wild's access to records," related to the village project. . .”
~ ~ ~

April 21, 2005 ... Suits, access wrangling slow 'Village' process
By Richard Walter

“Infighting over access to the planned Village at Wolf Creek site goes on even as lawsuits seeking to stop the construction are being heard in Alamosa.

A last-minute decision, or lack thereof April 15, temporarily halted the developers' request for access by snowmobile to Forest Service Road 391.

Infighting over access to the planned Village at Wolf Creek site goes on even as lawsuits seeking to stop the construction are being heard in Alamosa. . .”
~ ~ ~

April 7, 2005 ... One wonders why

“Dear Editor: County residents need to query the county commissioners about their stance concerning The Village at Wolf Creek. The commissioners appear to be avoiding this controversial issue, postponing or canceling public debate.

Most recently, the work session on this subject scheduled April 18 was canceled. . . One wonders why.

. . . although in Mineral County, would have disastrous effects on Archuleta County. We can visualize the number of construction workers who would bring their families to build the project and the number of unskilled workers who would work at the development when complete. . .”
~ ~ ~

Mar 17, 2005 ... Commissioners set meetings to address 'Village' concerns
By Tom Carosello

“Last March, plans for The Village at Wolf Creek were unveiled and quickly rose to the top of many Pagosans list of pet peeves.

A year later, the debate surrounding the controversial endeavor has shown no signs of waning interest, as evidenced by this week's meeting of the Archuleta County Board of Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~


====================
2004

Dec 23, 2004 ... Town resolved: Cannot endorse 'Village' plan
By Tess Noel Baker

“The Town of Pagosa Springs "cannot endorse," the Village at Wolf Creek as approved by Mineral County Commissioners.

That's the bottom line of a resolution unanimously accepted by the town council at a special meeting Tuesday. One member, Darrel Cotton, was absent.

No public comment was taken, but an audience of about 20 applauded the decision. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 16, 2004 ... Further talks between town and Honts appear unlikely
By Tess Noel Baker

“A meeting between town officials and Village at Wolf Creek developer Bob Honts appears unlikely.

Mayor Ross Aragon said Tuesday that after a meeting scheduled with the Community Vision Council Dec. 6 had to be canceled, agreement on a second meeting had not been reached.

Honts, chief executive officer and managing venturer of The Village at Wolf Creek, also known as the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, agreed to consider meeting with town officials late in November when the council took a first look at a resolution in opposition to the project. . .”
~ ~ ~

Dec 9, 2004 ... 'Village' comment deadline now Jan. 5
By Tom Carosello and Tess Noel Baker

“The U.S. Forest Service has extended the comment period . . . to Jan. 5.

The draft was released in early October and addresses an application for access easements submitted this spring by the controversial endeavor's funding entity, the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, requesting transportation and utility easements across a 250-foot strip of Forest Service land that separates the project site from U.S. 160.

In summary the draft environmental impact statement, or "DEIS," states the Forest Service's proposed action is to grant the request, allowing developers access to the site via two entry points.”
~ ~ ~

Dec 2, 2004 ... 3 suits seek to block 'Village'
By Tom Carosello

“As plans for construction of The Village at Wolf Creek move forward, fresh legal actions aimed at derailing the controversial project continue to mount.

According to a press release issued this week by Colorado Wild, Wolf Creek Ski Area, Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council have all filed lawsuits to thwart development of the village. . .”
~ ~ ~

November 11, 2004 ... 'Village' huge issue; county seeks Mineral talks ...
By Tom Carosello

“The Archuleta County Board of Commissioners agrees The Village at Wolf Creek is a huge issue, but isn't prepared to adopt a formal position on the controversial endeavor.

During this week's board meeting, the commissioners offered brief commentary regarding potential impacts the village could have on the county, but stopped short of condemning - or supporting - plans to construct an alpine community of thousands on roughly 300 acres of private property just east of Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~

November 4, 2004  ... Friends of Wolf Creek to hold public hearing

“Friends of Wolf Creek will hold a public hearing on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek project. . .

Jeff Berman, director of Colorado Wild, is expected to attend the meeting and offer his opinions on several village topics, including a related draft environmental impact statement issued recently by the U.S. Forest Service.

"The Forest Service, thus far, refuses to hold genuine public hearings on their draft environmental impact statement, opting for 'open house' style meetings in an attempt to diminish public participation," says Berman. . .”
~ ~ ~

September 02, 2004  ... Village at Wolf Creek review set
By Tom Carosello

“Have an opinion of The Village at Wolf Creek?
In two weeks - Sept. 16 at 7 p.m., to be exact - the Mineral County Planning and Zoning Commission will meet to consider the final plat for the proposed development, an endeavor that would occupy roughly 290 acres of private land in the Alberta Park area adjacent to Wolf Creek Ski Area.”
~ ~ ~

August 19, 2004 ... Plat review of Village at Wolf Creek Sept. 16
By Tom Carosello

“.The Mineral County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a 7 p.m. public meeting Sept. 16 to consider the final plat for The Village at Wolf Creek.

The meeting will be held inside the Mineral County Courthouse, 1201 North Main St. in Creede.  Bob Honts, chief executive officer and president of the Leavell-McComb Joint Venture, has submitted the final plat for the proposed village to Mineral County. . .”
~ ~ ~

July 15, 2004 ... 'Village' foes plan Wolf Creek weekend

“Friends of Wolf Creek have scheduled a campout gathering Friday through Sunday to explore the proposed "Village at Wolf Creek" region.  They invite area residents to show up any time and stay only as long as they like.

The group believes the planned village would destroy lush meadows, alpine creeks, unspoiled backcountry recreational opportunities and one of the most critical wildlife corridors in the Southern Rocky Mountains, all the while competing with a local economy that relies on tourist dollars.”
~ ~ ~

April 1, 2004 ... Not too late

“Dear Editor: . . . there was a dominant attitude against the proposed "Village at Wolf Creek’" but many left saying, "It's a done deal, there's nothing we can do about it."
Exactly what Texas developer Bob Honts, partner of billionaire Red McCombs, would have us believe!
..., Mr. Honts' outstanding career in town planning and urban development is obvious; he knows the laws and how to get around them, but he does not know the value of the wilderness. . .”
~ ~ ~

March 25, 2004  ...  'Village at Wolf Creek' proposal unpopular with Pagosa crowd
By Tom Carosello

"A rising tide will lift all boats."
Such was the analogy offered by Bob Honts, chief executive officer and managing venturer of The Village at Wolf Creek, when asked what economical impacts he feels the pending endeavor would have on neighboring communities.

Honts' response was one of many given to a Vista Clubhouse crowd of over 150 attending a two-hour "public scoping" meeting conducted Thursday night by the U.S. Forest Service. . .”
~ ~ ~

Mar 18, 2004 ... Outdoors: Village at Wolf Creek info meeting tonight

“. . . application for transportation and utility systems and facilities easements for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek . . .
This application, if authorized, would permit a perpetual easement, through federal lands, for year-round permanent road access, obtain or modify utility easements, and modify easement terms for Alberta Lake access for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
The village, a connected but nonfederal action, is a planned community of approximately 2,172 hotel, condominium and private residence units solely within 287.5 acres of privately-owned land entirely within the Rio Grande National Forest adjacent to Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~

==========
2003

==========
2002

==========
2001

==========
2000

August 3, 2000 ... Re-think, re-plan

“Dear Editor,
My concerns over the future Wolf Creek Village bring one big question: Where will the water come from for such a large development? . . .”
~ ~ ~

Jul 27, 2000 ... Planners leery of Wolf Creek Village
By John M. Motter

“. . . Archuleta County, county planners have compiled a list of issues they feel Mineral County has not adequately reviewed during preliminary plan public hearings.

A 287.5-acre, winter-summer destination resort called The Village at Wolf Creek is being proposed. . .

"At full build out, The Village at Wolf Creek could have a population of 5,000 people, about one-half the current population of Archuleta County," said Mike Molica, the director of county development for Archuleta County. "That kind of change has to have a huge impact on our county."
~ ~ ~


Jul 20, 2000 ... Village at Wolf Creek hearing end
By John M. Motter

“{...}
A public hearing ... was conducted in Creede June 29. Creede is the county seat of Mineral County in which the development is planned.

"That hearing pretty much concluded the legal requirements for public hearings for the preliminary stage of this development," said Les Cahill, Mineral County administrator. "Of course we will continue to welcome input from the planning departments of surrounding counties." . . .”
~ ~ ~

June 1, 2000 ... Public hearing set for June 29 on Wolf Creek Village
By Karl Isberg

“{...}
The Village at Wolf Creek is an idea that has been around for more than a decade, involving a tract adjacent the southeast boundary of the ski area.
{...}
According to a development plan for the project, the 2,172 units will occupy 185 lots in an area of 287 acres - with 111 acres left as open space. Developers propose a total 5,176 bedrooms in the units with 4,532 parking spaces. Commercial space at the development is set at 222,100 square feet.

... variances requested {...}



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No comments:

Post a Comment