Log In


Reset Password
Pine River Times Pine River Times opinion Pine River Times news Pine River Times sports

County commission, consultants discuss new land use code effort

Yet again, La Plata County has started on the process to create a new land use code to govern rural development. The county commissioners hired Kendig-Keast Collaborative from Texas earlier this fall to do the re-write.

Consultants Bret Keast and David Baird toured almost the entire county on Nov. 9 and met with a group of agriculture stakeholders. On Nov. 10, they met with four other stakeholder groups, then the county commissioners and planning commissioners.

Keast told the county commissioners he grew up on a farm, so he understands ag issues. "The thing that really came to me yesterday (on the county tour) is, it's drop-dead gorgeous, but there's so much diversity," he said. "We can't do one size fits all and expect it to work."

He advised, "We take broad policy statements and figure how to make it happen." For example, he said people want to preserve scenic views, "but when you start to implement that, that's where you start infringing on rights."

The ag people want to preserve their right to farm, Keast said. "Let's build on the shared values and then look at the differences. Can you regulate to preserve some of those things or not? By its very nature, the county isn't designed to accommodate a lot of development in the rural areas. There are gravel roads. The problem is when you start pushing development into those areas. We have to educate people on what services are provided at the county level."

County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt asked if the ag group comments were more about preserving ag, or open space.

Keast said, "It felt more like encroachment of development on land that's been in the family for generations." Then there is the right-to-farm issue as people move into rural areas and then complain about ag activities.

Commissioner Julie Westendorff raised the issue of heirs of longtime ag families who don't want to continue farming, "and you end up with a bunch of 35-acre parcels that aren't regulated."

Lachelt added, "The rub for decades has been, 'Don't box us in, don't tell us what to do,'" if they want to sell some of their land.

County Planning Director Damian Peduto said the consultants will review the existing land use code and come back in late January. Much of it dates to the early 1990s. The county hired another consultant to re-do it in 2004. The county commissioners adopted the resulting code in 2007, but it was never implemented because of problems. The commissioners unapproved it in 2009 after determining that it would encourage unwanted rural sprawl development.

One goal now, Keast said, is to make the code intuitive and understandable so people can read it, know who they need to talk to and what approvals are necessary.

"There are so many coordinating agencies, it's difficult to follow the process," he said. "Simplify. Streamline. Do more administratively. Take out unnecessary steps."

People said they don't understand the code and are frustrated with it, Keast said. "We heard about the market, the weight on business, how projects aren't feasible because of all the requirements...Every single session, we heard about water. We heard about economic development. A lot of businesses say the process is too burdensome, especially for a start-up business."

Colleague David Baird said people complained that the permit process isn't predictable, that applicants have spent a lot of money without knowing what the result would be.

County Commissioner Brad Blake, who owns a plumbing business, said he's heard many complaints about the cost of the permit process and the time it takes. He said he did a project elsewhere and re-zoning took two weeks. The process shouldn't take two years, he said.

Baird responded, "We hear that a lot. Developers will accept a higher standard if you give them a better process. That's one of the major goals, to reduce that time."

According to Times archives from 2007 and 2009, the uncertainty for applicants and the time it takes to get through the process were issues then.

Westendorff said last week, "It's easy to say there's too much regulation. If (the standard) is compatibility, every time you do something, you have to ask the neighbors. There could be nothing more uncertain, but do you know how easy it is to write that it must be compatible?" She hears the most from the marijuana industry. They say, "Tell us where we can go, and we'll go there," she said.

Keast said the current code is written in the negative, "where you can't go instead of where you can go."

Keast warned that the new code might actually be a thicker document, "but that doesn't mean it's more regulation. It's to spell out the process more clearly. It will use plain terms, not too much legalese, but it's a legal document."

During the process, redline drafts will be available for people to track changes, he said. They won't start from scratch on a new code, he said. "Maybe some things need tweaks and other sections that will be all new." They also will look at the scrapped 2007 plan to find the "nuggets of wisdom."

One part that will be new is to align the map that says what uses are appropriate where with zoning that says what's allowed where, so people know what they can do, and residents know what might be allowed next door, Keast said.

Westendorff commented, "The word appropriate can have negative connotations, where the government wants you to be. It should be where the infrastructure is, the water, roads. What's the most sensible place for development."

Keast said, "We heard a lot about carrying capacity. Is it 'Come one, come all,' and we'll figure out how to deal with it?" Can development be concentrated around hubs instead of on 35-acre parcels, he asked. "Maybe increase the minimum lot size. Those are the difficult questions from a political standpoint." He acknowledged this wasn't discussed with the ag stakeholders group.

County Manager Joe Kerby raised the issue of who pays to build infrastructure needed for development.

Keast said they got comments from people who would be charged more for that than their project would cost. "If we're going to have developments that require infrastructure, how do we pay for it if the county can't pay for it and the developer can't pay for it?" he asked.

They discussed getting public participation through the process, especially from outlying areas. "Put on jeans and go to the coffee shop, go to them" if the county can't get people to meetings, Keast said.

Keast and Baird will be back on Jan. 25 and 26, then in April, June, and September. But Keast said those visits might need more time than what's currently scheduled. "I want this to be successful like you do," he said.

"I bet not as much," Westendorff responded.