Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to correct the time of the special Dillon Town Council meeting.

The Dillon Town Council has scheduled a special meeting for Monday, Sept. 16, to discuss drafting a “factual statement” on the upcoming referendum vote regarding a controversial proposed development.

The meeting will be held at Dillon Town Hall from 5-7 p.m., according to an agenda. The upcoming referendum election scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 1, will determine the fate of a controversial project near the Dillon Reservoir waterfront that is proposed to include 200 condo units, three restaurants, retail space and more.

Mayor Carolyn Skowyra told the Dillon Town Council when it discussed issuing a statement on the referendum election during a work session last Tuesday, Sept. 10, that it could prove difficult to come to a unanimous decision.

“What I’m anticipating with my crystal ball is that we come down to likely a divided vote,” Skowyra said. “I think everyone in Dillon would see right through it. And so, why do it? Do it if you want. That’s fine. I’m not going to stand in the way with my single vote. I can’t do that.”

But other Town Council members said that they would like to have a statement from the Town Council issued to voters.

“People think a ‘no’ vote means that the project will not take place. That’s what they think. And that’s very reasonable to think because it’s a ‘no’ — the language we all speak,” Council member Oliver Luck said. “So I think there is some confusion, and I just want voters to know what the upshot of a ‘no’ vote is.”

The referendum question before voters Oct. 1 asks whether or not a planned unit development application for the 626 Lake Dillon Drive project at 626 & 652 Lake Dillon Drive known as the “branded residence” project, should be approved.

The project in question is a five-story, ​​485,225-square-foot structure proposed by Developer Jake Porritt. The structure would contain 200 condominium units — which would be “branded residences,” meaning they would be owned by individual owners but rented out as short-term rentals by a management company — as well as three restaurants and retail space. The structure would also include a private pool and public amenities including an observation deck and a 70-foot setback from Lake Dillon Drive for a park and view corridor.

Back in March, the Dillon Town Council approved the project for the property where the Best Western Ptarmigan Lodge and defunct-Arapahoe Cafe now stand. But Dillon residents who had raised concerns about the project gathered enough votes on a petition to force reconsideration of the project’s approval.

In a voter information packet mailed to registered voters in town, the individuals behind the petition wrote that the branded residence project is “not a good fit for Dillon” and that the “massive” structure “clashes with the character of the town of Dillon.”

The petitioners raise concern about the scale and height of the proposed development and that it could create traffic problems, parking problems and an influx of people into town. The petitioners state, “The people of Dillon want to keep the small town appeal that is our unique selling point.”

Porritt has told town voters that if the planned unit development — which allows for flexibility from the underlying zoning — for the waterfront development is overturned, he will instead move forward with a “by right” project at the site. He has said that the “by right” project to construct 240-condominiums at the site would not require the approval of the Dillon Town Council since it already meets the underlying zoning.

Some Council members, including Luck and Dana Christiansen, said that the Council’s statement should include this “binary” choice between the planned unit development and “by right” structure as a “fact.” But Skowyra questions whether that is a “fact” or whether the town would be taking the developer at his word.

Despite Porritt’s statements that he would build a “by right” structure instead, some petitioners have suggested that Porritt could abandon plans for a project at the Best Western site altogether if the planned unit development is overturned. Porritt refuted this idea, stating he does not plan to abandon developing the parcels.

Porritt has said that the “by right” project wouldn’t contain public amenities like the observation deck or the 70-foot setback for the park. He has said the “by right” project would also be “more obstructive and much less attractive” than the planned unit development structure but would be “just as large in square footage” and “spread across the entire site.”

Porritt has also noted that other redevelopment plans he has pitched to the town, such as workforce housing and a parking structure, have been based on revenues that the “branded residence” project would generate through metropolitan districts. He’s said that a “by right” project would not generate the same amount in revenues for public improvements.

In the voter information packet, Porritt’s development team wrote that the branded residence project is “a substantive plan of action to revitalize downtown Dillon,” that will generate “millions of dollars that can only legally be used for approved public infrastructure projects.”

Some town residents have recently raised questions about why Porritt does not own the Best Western and Arapahoe Cafe properties he plans to develop. Dillon Town Manager Nathan Johnson said that the owners of those properties owners sent a letter to the town consenting to the planned unit development project at the site.

Porritt said in an email Friday that the Porritt Group has contract provisions in the real estate purchase agreements with property owners “that allow us to pursue the necessary zoning for our contemplated transaction.” He said he also has the consent of the sellers in writing, which has been submitted to the town.

“We are closing on the Best Western per the terms of the contract,” Porritt said.

Porritt, to the question of whether receiving the “necessary zoning” could impact the finalization of the property sales, reiterated his statements concerning the referendum.

“We are closing on the property regardless of the outcome of the referendum. We will build, as we have said many times, either the as of right building or the building allowed under the (planned unit development),” Porritt said.