A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Hearing officer approves Newton (Snow Mass Creek Road Ranch) activity envelope with limits on river-setback expansion; ground-mounted solar denied pending an ex

May 19, 2026 | Pitkin County, Colorado


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Hearing officer approves Newton (Snow Mass Creek Road Ranch) activity envelope with limits on river-setback expansion; ground-mounted solar denied pending an ex
The Pitkin County hearing officer on May 19 approved the Newton activity envelope and site-plan review for the Snow Mass Creek Road Ranch property, imposing edits that explicitly allow the recorded activity envelope to include the footprint of the existing residence within the 100-foot Snow Mass Creek setback while limiting all new development into that setback to the one-time 300 square feet permitted by code.

Rebecca Dunlap of the Pitkin County Community Development Department presented staff’s recommendation, noting the draft determination corrected an earlier floor-area error (zoning now shows about 6,600 square feet of floor area after removing a previously included crawl space). Staff said the current application would remodel the residence to a maximum of 9,100 square feet and add four agricultural structures; because the parcel exceeds 35 acres those agricultural buildings fit the county’s acreage-based exemptions. Staff also told the hearing officer that referral reviewers — including Roaring Fork Fire Rescue — require testing of an existing dry hydrant before final inspection and that the driveway meet a county 16-foot width standard.

The central dispute at the hearing concerned how to read a long-standing riparian setback allowance in the county code. Staff’s draft determination interprets the allowance as a limit on floor area within the 100-foot setback, capping any above-grade attached expansion into the setback at 300 square feet in total. Applicant representative Mitch Hos of Hos Land Planning argued that the plain language and context show the 300-square-foot allowance refers to footprint (ground-occupied area) rather than total floor area, and said the project would expand the footprint by about 105 square feet with other added area located above the existing footprint.

"The code is very clear," Hos said. "It says a one-time 300 square ft above-grade attached expansion. That is about footprint. Floor area has nothing to do with protecting a riparian area." He said the applicant’s plan places most new square footage above existing ground-floor footprint and therefore has negligible additional ground impact on the riparian area.

The hearing officer said he reviewed the language and prior materials but determined he would retain staff’s approach that the total expansion into the setback be limited to 300 square feet regardless of whether the new area is on the ground floor or on an upper floor. To address the applicant’s concerns about where the activity envelope was drawn, the officer directed edits to recital 6A and condition 1.A.i so that the recorded activity envelope and the site plan language explicitly recognize the footprint of the existing single-family residence that sits within the 100-foot setback.

The officer approved the hearing officer determination for the Newton activity envelope and site-plan review, including a GMQS exemption for the TDR receiver site and approval to expand a legally nonconforming structure without significant changes, subject to the redlined recitals and conditions and standard referral requirements. The decision included administrative fixes to draft numbering and the signature block.

Ground-mounted solar, which had been shown on scenic exhibits submitted with the application, was not approved. Staff reported it had not completed an on-site scenic review and that recent county code changes (Section 430 in the revised Chapter 4) require a "good cause" showing for ground-mounted solar. The hearing officer and applicant agreed the array could be pursued separately by requesting an exemption and that staff would review scenic impacts in that exemption process. "We did not approve them," the hearing officer said when asked; applicants still may submit for an exemption and staff said it will focus review on scenic impacts and any reflections visible from public vantage points.

Next steps: the applicant will record the activity envelope consistent with the edited findings and conditions; any work requiring building permits will be subject to applicable wildfire and building-code requirements in effect at the time of permit application. The ground-mounted solar array remains possible only if the applicant pursues a separate exemption and staff’s scenic review supports approval.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee