The petitioners behind a referendum effort in Dillon believe that they have secured the required signatures to force the town to reconsider its recent approval of a major development overlooking the waterfront.

Summit Cove resident Robin Robson, who has helped lead the referendum push, said that 211 people signed the petition that was turned in to Dillon Town Clerk Adrienne Stuckey on Friday, April 26. The petition protests an ordinance approving a development with 200 condominium units and three restaurants at 626 Lake Dillon Drive that the Dillon Town Council passed with a 4-2 vote on March 19.

“The Town Council didn’t appear to be listening to the people,” Robson said. “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signatures, state law says the ordinance will go back to the Dillon Town Council for reconsideration and — if not repealed by the council — to a town referendum vote, with a special election scheduled within 150 days.

Robson said the petitioners requested Dillon’s voter rolls from the county and alphabetized the names in an attempt to make sure that everyone who signed the petition was registered to vote in town. That proved to be somewhat difficult since some people thought they lived in Dillon but actually lived in unincorporated Summit County, and some of the names will likely not be certified, she said.

“People don’t realize how few people live in Summit County,” Robson said. “Dillon Valley isn’t part of Dillon.”

Still, with 837 registered voters in the town of Dillon, Robson said that she expects the petition to meet the required 15% threshold, which would be roughly 125 certified signatures.

Several Dillon and county residents raised objections to the five-story project proposed by Developer Jake Porritt when the Town Council voted on it March 19. 

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.

At that Town Council meeting, 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 last month 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.”