A referendum petition in Dillon that seeks to force the town to reconsider its approval of a major development overlooking the waterfront has received the required signatures, according to Dillon Town Manager Nathan Johnson.

Summit Cove resident Robin Robson, one of the proponents behind the petition, said the petition she submitted last month included 211 signatures. The petition protests an ordinance approving a development with 200 condominium units and three restaurants that the Dillon Town Council approved in a 4-2 vote on March 19.

“The Town Council didn’t appear to be listening to the people,” Robson said after filing the petition with the town. “All the petition is asking is for a vote by the town of Dillon on its future and what the people foresee for a future.”

Under Dillon’s town code, the clerk must certify that 15% of registered voters in town signed the petition for it to be found sufficient. If the petition has the required signatures, state law says the ordinance will go back to the Dillon Town Council for reconsideration and — if not repealed by the council — to a town referendum vote, with a special election scheduled within 150 days.

However, under Colorado state law, registered voters in town also have 40 days after the referendum petition is filed to protest in writing. If a protest is lodged against the petition, a hearing may be scheduled to determine whether or not the petition is sufficient.

A copy of the petition lists Robson and Louis Skowyra, the husband of Dillon Mayor Carolyn Skowyra, as the two proponents of the referendum effort. Carolyn Skowyra was among the council members who voted against approving the development.

“I’m a private citizen in the town of Dillon and regardless of my relationship to the mayor, I can have my own opinions and vision for what the town of Dillon should be,” Louis Skowyra said. “I’ve been involved in town for a lot of years.”

Louis Skowyra, who noted that he previously served on the Town Council and currently serves on the town’s Parks and Recreation Committee, said that he backs the referendum effort because he doesn’t believe the approved development is the “correct next step” for the town.

He noted that several Dillon residents raised objections to the five-story project proposed by Developer Jake Porritt ahead of the Town Council’s vote to approve the project in March.

Many residents who spoke voiced concerns about the size and scale of the building, which also includes about 20,000 square feet of retail space, a private pool and terrace, a public observation tower and an underground parking structure with 484 spaces. Others questioned why workforce housing wasn’t included in the project or worried about the increased traffic that would be associated with the new development and the noise that construction could create.

“Dillon has so much that other towns in our community don’t have,” Louis Skowyra said. “We have the beautiful north shore of the lake, and I understand why a developer would target that as an opportunity. I think that makes sense, and something like the project they approved makes sense. But there has to be more that comes with it.”

Louis Skowyra said he thinks that Dillon needs a developer to come in and kickstart economic growth in town but that the Town Council didn’t do enough to negotiate items that would address the current needs of the community, such as workforce housing. He questioned where the employees required to run the new development would live.

“I think Dillon needs a spark,” Louis Skowyra said. “I just think to have this kind of conversation and give up building height restrictions and give back a tremendous amount of money in tax incentives to the developer without addressing the current needs of our community — I think it’s shortsighted and it’s reckless.”

At that Town Council meeting when the Town Council approved the waterfront project, Porritt said 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 when asked about the petition, Porritt said that petitions like the one 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.

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. It would be “just as large in square footage” and “spread across the entire site,” he said.

Porritt said the development already approved by the Town Council “is beautiful, accessible and minimized in the most important way.”