During its regular meeting held on Tuesday, Oct. 20, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC), acting as the Board of Adjustments, unanimously approved Resolution 2026-04, approving a variance request from the county’s land use regulations for 84 Ranch Holding Company, located at 6252A U.S. 84.
According to the meeting’s agenda, “At their Regular Meeting on August 18, 2026, the Board of Adjustment held a public hearing to approve a General Variance from the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations or 84 Ranch Land Holding Company LLC at Lot 45, at 6252A US HWY 84. The Board, with a 3-0 vote, approved the General Variance with several conditions. Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution.”
Multiple public comments were given on the matter, with neighboring property owners speaking against approval of the variance.
Dawn Vrastil was the first commentor, explaining that she and her husband, William Vrastil, own three cattle farms around the country, including one near Pagosa Springs.
She stated that the BoCC approving the resolution “would be an ill-advised act on behalf of the county.”
Dawn Vrastil stated that the applicant, Brian Wattier, used misinformation in regard to a Colorado Department of transportation (CDOT) access permit.
“84 Ranch is still not compliant with property access and failed a recent CDOT inspection, but it is business as usual for the lodging unit on this property,” she said.
In a later interview, Assistant County Attorney Mark Olguin indicated that the applicant has received a CDOT access permit.
Dawn Vrastil also claimed that there were 15 “violations” found on Wattier’s property, but these violations were not followed up on by the county, “or it was pushed through with a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude.”
Dawn Vrastil requested that the BoCC “delay all planning projects” in the county until its comprehensive plan is updated, “and establish, with community input on zoning that aligns with existing uses in this county.”
She also spoke about regenerative farming, explaining she and her husband practice that on their farms.
“Renting lodging units or RVs does not contribute to any aspect of farming; it deteriorates it,” she said.
“Just because ag tourism is a fad and it’s popular doesn’t mean it fits into the rural valley of Archuleta County,” she added.
William Vrastil spoke next, asking the commissioners to affirm the values stated on the plaques “right behind you,” specifically noting the last sentence of “accountability with maximum transparency.”
He claimed there has been a lack of due process involved with the 84 Ranch project.
“This is not about the applicant personally, nor is it about his project. Our concern is the county’s lack of transparency and lack of due process throughout this applicant’s process,” he said.
William Vrastil mentioned that during a planning commission meeting held in August 2025, then-planning commission chair Matt Nobles declared having a conflict of interest with the 84 Ranch property, yet “enthusiastically” participated in discussions involving the project.
William Vrastil explained that the county attorney later indicated that Nobles should not have participated in the discussion due to his conflict.
“Major foul in my eyes,” he said.
William Vrastil also explained that those planning commission meeting minutes indicate that the Vrastils were overwhelmingly in support of the project.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.
He then explained that in March, former Director of Development Eva Kruse performed a surprise inspection on the 84 Ranch property and “found several violations.”
“And yet when she reported that … she was told by the county manager that he was not going to allow the [board conditional use permit] to be pulled, as she had indicated would be the right thing to do,” William Vrastil said.
He then explained that, since then, two planning staff members resigned, and Kruse was let go.
He also mentioned that the commissioners were contacted separately and asked to go directly to the Planning Department to see what the issue was, rather than going to the county manager, “who was, in fact, the problem.”
He noted that did not happen, and stated that Kruse was fired “because she challenged the county manager.”
The next commenter stated that she is a 50-50 business partner, and also Wattier’s mother.
She stated that she and her son respect their neighbors and will address any concerns about the project through the “proper channels.”
“I’ve watched him follow every step,” she said of Wattier, noting that he has done everything asked of him by the county over the past two years.
She explained that their family chose Pagosa to raise Wattier’s children, and that they want to do business with locals.
Another commenter spoke in support of Wattier and his project, explaining that she recently moved to Pagosa Springs and discovered 84 Ranch.
“We were excited to see something we’d mostly encountered in documentaries taking place in the small town that we now call home,” she said, in regard to Wattier’s project.
She explained that Wattier has a passion for his ranch, and mentioned that there is economic and educational potential with Wattier’s projects, adding that it “is something, I believe, can benefit Pagosa.”
Wattier commented last, stating that he respects his neighbors’ concerns.
He also spoke about the difficulties in dealing with multiple different county staff members over the past two years in regard to getting the proper permits to run his ranch business.
“I have dealt with over six people in the Planning Department in two years,” he said.
Wattier explained that over that time the processes and guidance from those staff members has changed.
“I have just been beat down in these meetings recently,” Wattier said, adding that he’s been falsely told he is not following rules, but has not been provided with any specific examples.
“I find it odd that someone inspected my land and said I was breaking all these rules, and I was never informed of this,” he said, explaining that he is not a big developer and that his focus is on growing organic foods and educating the community, and that agritourism is a way to bring people to Pagosa.
“People are excited for what I’m trying to do here,” he said.
Commissioner Veronica Medina referred to County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini, asking if the BoCC could seek legal advice in regard to some things brought up in the comments.
Giovannini explained that the resolution is formalizing the variance decision.
She added that she is aware of one complaint on the property, and that it would be a “good idea” to look into that, but that “doesn’t necessarily” stop the action of the resolution.
Commissioner John Ranson offered comment on the matter, indicating that he has been accused of corruption over the situation with 84 Ranch, adding there is “no truth or facts” to that.
“I watched a businessman come into this community and get treated like crap,” Ranson said, explaining the BoCC made a 3-0 decision to approve the variance request with the best information it had on hand.
Ranson also commented on how the county’s Planning Department has had multiple staff changes over the past two years.
“That’s bad on us,” he said.
Ranson then indicated that it was presented to him in writing “that a lawsuit is coming.”
clayton@pagosasun.com
>