Editor’s note: This story was updated to clarify that the March 19 vote was during two council member’s last full meetings as elected officials.

Residents in Dillon are seeking to use a petition to overturn a 4-2 vote by Dillon Town Council last month that approved plans for a controversial development on the Dillon Reservoir waterfront.

Dillon Town Clerk Adrienne Stuckey confirmed that the town certified the petition on Thursday, April 18. If 15% of registered Dillon voters sign the petition, a referendum vote could be scheduled to determine the fate of the five-story project at 626 Lake Dillon Drive, according to Colorado state law and Dillon’s Home Rule Charter.

Developer Jake Porritt is behind the mixed-use building, which is planned to include 200 condominium units, three restaurants, more than 20,000 square feet of retail space, a private pool and terrace, a public observation tower and an underground parking structure with 484 spaces.

Summit Cove resident Robin Robson, one of the proponents of the referendum who is helping to circulate the petition to Dillon residents, said that those who voiced their opposition to the project at the Town Council meeting last month felt “unheard.”

“There were a lot of people there all very passionately against what this project is going to do to the town of Dillon,” Robson said. “The Town Council didn’t even really listen to them. I was appalled.”

Several town and county residents spoke out against the project when it was approved at a March 19 Dillon Town Council meeting. The residents who spoke voiced concerns about the size and scale of the building as well as about increased traffic associated with the new development, the lack of workforce housing associated with the project and the noise that constructions could create.

While Robson noted that she is not a registered voter in the town of Dillon, she said she has lived in the community for 40 years and considers the town her home. She said the town told her the petition needs the signatures of 83 Dillon voters to be successful in calling a referendum. Dillon residents hoping to sign the petition can contact Robson at robanrob@gmail.com. 

Under state law, a referendum petition must receive the required signatures and be filed with the town clerk no later than 30 days after final publication of the ordinance. Stuckey said the final publication of the ordinance approving the development agreement for the project occurred March 29.

Dillon resident Joel Schwartzman, who supports the referendum efforts, said that the project at 626 Lake Dillon Drive “doesn’t fit in the whole notion of what Dillon is about” and will make Dillon “more of a commercial town.”

Schwartzman noted that two of the council members who voted to approve the project last month did so during their last full meeting as council members. He also raised concern about traffic from the development as well as the lack of workforce housing to support the project.

“Who’s going to run those stores? Who’s going to be the waitresses or chefs or the cooks for those restaurants,” Schwartzman said. “Nobody is thinking about that. This was jammed through in a 4-2 vote.”

Porritt said at the Town Council meeting when his project was approved that workforce housing is still planned as part of his larger plans to redevelop downtown but did not elaborate on the timeline or location.

In an emailed statement, Porritt said Friday that petitions like the one being circulated in Dillon are “a right that town voters have for a good reason.” But he questioned whether it would be in the best interest of the town residents to support overturning the ordinance.

“In this case, there will be a project on the site in question no matter what,” Porritt said in the statement. “But what is in the best interest for the Town?”

Porritt said the planned unit development application the Town Council approved for the project allowed him to make certain considerations about the shape and size of the building that wouldn’t be possible with the underlying zoning.

The building that could be built under the existing zoning for the waterfront property “by right” — or without requiring approval by the Town Council — would be “more obstructive and much less attractive” Porritt said. The building that would be built “by right” would be “just as large in square footage” and “spread across the entire site,” he said.

Porritt said that the Dillon Town Council, Dillon Planning Commission and town staff “have negotiated a victory for the voters and surrounding community.” He said he hopes that voters trust the town staff and elected officials.

“The resulting building is beautiful, accessible and minimized in the most important way,” Porritt said. “The benefits achieved way outpace the compromises.”