A long and emotional hearing in Delta County on January 22 focused on Fort Austin, an agritourism property along Highway 133 near Paonia.
The Delta County Board of Adjustment reviewed whether the county’s community development director acted within his authority when he classified Fort Austin’s facilities and operations as an unlawful non-conforming use. That determination followed a complaint that triggered a county review, though the complaint itself became a major point of dispute during the hearing.
Community Development Director Sean Gardner told the board its role was limited. Members were not deciding whether Fort Austin is a good business or whether agritourism belongs in the North Fork Valley. Instead, they were asked to determine whether the director followed county rules and relied on clear evidence.
County staff said the determination was based on three compliance issues. The first involved access. Staff said Fort Austin expanded from a private residence into a commercial operation hosting events and overnight guests. Under state law, that change requires a highway access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Gardner said Fort Austin does not have that permit and that CDOT, not the county, controls whether commercial access is allowed.
The second issue involved water. Fort Austin uses a well permitted for residential use. County staff said residential wells cannot legally supply water for paying guests or events, regardless of intent or scale.
The third issue involved wastewater. County staff said a septic system tied to a public restroom, while appropriately designed and constructed, was never fully permitted, which becomes an issue when the public is invited onto the property.
Fort Austin’s owners argued enforcement should never have begun. They said the complaint was invalid and that the county failed to conduct a required field visit before taking action. County staff acknowledged no on-site inspection tied to the complaint occurred but said their determination relied on permits and records, not a physical visit.
One board member agreed the complaint was flawed. The majority of the board said that once staff uncovered compliance issues, they could not ignore them. The board voted to affirm the planning director’s decision that the property is an unlawful non-conforming use. Any next steps now move beyond the Board of Adjustment, through new applications to state and local agencies, or the courts.
