The issue of whether a Dollar General store can be built on a 3.78-acre parcel just off of Highway 145 between Cortez and Dolores remains in legal limbo.
The Montezuma County commissioners have rejected a high-impact permit for the proposal twice, first in April 2024 and most recently in July of last year. Both rejections came on 2-1 votes, with Kent Lindsay and Gerald Koppenhafer supporting the rejection and James Candelaria disagreeing.
The Georgia-based corporation that owns Dollar General, Leaf Properties, sued in District Court to challenge both rejections. The first time it sued, District Judge Todd Plewe remanded the matter to the commissioners, saying they made procedural mistakes such as not issuing a written decision.
The commissioners then held a second public hearing on the high-impact permit and again rejected it, this time providing a written decision. In December 2025, Leaf Properties sued again.
On Jan. 9, the county filed its response.
In its brief, Leaf Properties contends that the denial of a high-impact permit for the store was not supported by competent evidence.
“. . . speculative public comment about the traffic dangers of an intersection, for instance, is not ‘competent evidence’ in the face of a state regulatory conclusion that the intersection will function appropriately,” attorneys for Leaf Properties write. “By all rights, the Application should have been approved. . .”
Public testimony at both hearings was overwhelmingly opposed to the store. But the corporation’s attorneys say the applicant, Douglas Kinsey, provided a traffic study and a fire mitigation plan at the second hearing to address two of the major concerns the public voiced. Those were a possible increase in traffic crashes at the site, which is on N Road, and the fact that there would be a lengthy response time for fighting any fires there because it sits halfway between the Dolores and Cortez fire districts.
Leaf Properties says the denial of the proposal was arbitrary.
Kinsey has argued that, because the parcel is zoned commercial and is in a commercial-overlay district, he has a “vested right and entitled right” to build the Dollar General store.
“Ultimately, the BOCC majority sided with a vocal group of public commenters who presented anecdote and speculation, not any reason to doubt the multiple expert reports confirming the Application would not generate any unmitigated adverse impacts,” the Leaf Properties brief states.
“The public and the BOCC seemed to object to the mere notion of a commercial use at this location, yet in adopting both the Overlay and the COMZ zoning, the County already concluded that the area was appropriate for commercial development and that that significant adverse impacts to residential and agricultural uses can be mitigated.”
Although it is a commercial proposal in a commercial zone, the Dollar General store requires a high-impact permit because it would exceed the county’s threshold standard for the amount of traffic it would generate.
In its Jan. 9 response, the county argues there is a considerable record supporting the commissioners’ denial of the application
It says county land-use regulations have the primary objective of preserving rural character, and the area in question is indeed rural. The county says that the applicant is dismissing “voluminous public testimony” as not being competent evidence.
“Residents expressed significant concerns with Code compliance,” the county attorneys write. “Applicant largely postured in response that being in the commercial zone was Code compliance, and it dismissed and discounted public concerns about the significant additional traffic impacts in a rural location and its impact on surrounding residential and agricultural uses and zoning. For example, its traffic study may have indicated that in the abstract, the roads could handle the traffic volume, but this alone did not address preserving rural character, protecting agricultural activities, clustering commercial uses, transitioning commercial uses, decreasing property values, and other significant impacts to neighbors.”
During the second public hearing, Commissioner Lindsay said, “One of the over-arching themes of our county land-use plan is to maintain the rural character while allowing future development that fits the area. A commercial retail chain box store does not align with the community’s desire to maintain the beauty and rural character of the area formerly known as Lakeview 2.
“It also does not add to the highway beauty, which is designated as the San Juan Scenic Byway.”
The two sides disagree as well on whether the store will harm neighboring property values. Kinsey brought in an outside appraisal that said there would not be significant adverse impact on nearby properties.
In its reply, the county says, “The Appraisal introduced by the Applicant was focused on the proposed development of the subject property. The appraiser gave his opinion about the potential development’s impact on other properties in the area, but the Board ultimately was tasked with weighing his opinion against the public comment that highlighted concerns about the impact on the desirability of the neighborhood from the people living in the community. Applicant consistently (on this and most other issues) dismisses evidence in the form of testimony during public comment as not competent evidence, but the testimony of the residents in the community and their real world experiences at that location and the intersection of Highway 145 and County Road N are part of the public process and part of the record on which the Board bases their decision.”
The county attorneys conclude, “The Board found that at this location, Applicant’s proposed use constituted a significant adverse impact to the surrounding community due primarily to the high traffic impact in a rural setting, and its associated impacts. The record supports the Board’s exercise of discretion. . .”
