The Dillon Town Clerk has opted not to change the ballot language for an upcoming referendum vote despite the petitioners behind the referendum protesting the language as potentially “confusing” to voters.

Dillon Town Clerk Adrienne Stuckey held a hearing July 16 to set the ballot language for the special election scheduled after more than 200 town voters signed a petition asking for Dillon Town Council’s approval of a waterfront development to be reconsidered.

The development in question is proposed for 626 Lake Dillon Drive and would include 200 condominium units and three restaurants. Developer Jake Porritt has described the project as a “branded residence,” where the condominiums would be owned by individuals who could then rent their condo out as a short-term rental through a management company.

The Dillon Town Council originally approved the project March 19, despite many residents raising a variety of concerns, including about the size and scale of the project, the traffic it would generate and the need for workforce housing to be associated with it. 

The project was submitted and approved as a planned unit development, or PUD, which allows for variations from the strict application of the town’s zoning districts in order to allow for flexibility that promotes high-quality use of the space.

The petition forced the Town Council to reconsider its approval of the project. Then, when the Town Council voted to approve the project for a second time June 25, state law required the question of the project’s approval to be sent to a referendum of the town voters, and a special election was scheduled for Oct. 1.

During last month’s hearing on the ballot title, Stuckey proposed the following language: “Shall Ordinance No. 02-24, Series of 2024, An Ordinance Approving a PUD Development Plan for the 626 Lake Dillon Drive Branded Residence Project located at 626 & 652 Lake Dillon Drive and 153 & 223 W. La Bonte Street, be approved by the registered voters of Dillon?”

The ballot then asks voters to select ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

But several of the people involved with advancing the petition said at the public hearing that the ballot language does not match the intent of the petition and claim it is therefore in violation of Colorado state law.

Dillon resident Mary Ellen Gilliland said that the petitioners presented an alternative ballot title to the town that would have replaced the word “approved” with language that asks voters whether the ordinance should be “negated, nullified and repealed.”

“The real key point here is that the law requires the ballot title language to follow the intent of the citizen referendum effort and our stated purpose on the petition is a move to negate and nullify the ordinance,” Gilliland said. “It violates the intent of the petition instead of having it say ‘repeal,’ it says ‘approve.”

Dillon voter Joel Schwartzman said he worries that the ballot title language could prove misleading to voters.

“We don’t think the language that is going onto the ballot is clear, and state law indicates it needs to be clear,” Schwartzman said. “The language the registrar has created is confusing.”

But despite petitioners’ concerns, Stuckey said in a July 19 order that the original ballot title will be before voters in October, rather than the title suggested by the petitioners. 

Stuckey said in the email to petitioners, “Asking the question whether Ordinance No. 0-24 should be approved as opposed to whether it should be repealed is more consistent with the referendum statutes.” She cited state law that reads, “The ordinance … shall not take effect unless a majority of the registered electors voting on the measure vote in favor of the measure.”

Stuckey added: “The effect of a ‘yes’ vote with the original title is ‘for’ the ordinance, and a ‘no’ vote is ‘against’ the ordinance. The alternative would have a ‘yes’ vote being against the ordinance, a result at odds with the clear direction in the statute.”

Gilliland said that the petitioners have no plans to appeal the Town Clerk’s decision since it would have involved filing with the district court, which she said the group does not have the means to do.

Porritt has said that if town residents vote to overturn the “branded residence” project, he will instead move forward with a project that would be allowed under the existing zoning for the area, or “by right.” He has said the “by right” project would not include public amenities associated with the “branded residence” project, such as a public park and observation tower, or commercial and restaurant spaces.

But Gilliland said that she would like to see Porritt work with town residents to come up with a project that would be a better fit for the town.

“I think everybody wants to see Dillon revitalized. That’s our agenda,” Gilliland said. “… If we could work something out together, wouldn’t that be a happy ending.”