Accessory dwelling units can be a useful tool in Durango’s housing toolbox. Thoughtfully designed infill can limit sprawl, connect housing to existing services, and help residents remain in their neighborhoods. The Herald’s editorial board has consistently acknowledged that potential.
But we have also emphasized – repeatedly – that process, data, and public trust must guide housing policy, especially when proposed changes significantly affect established neighborhoods.
That standard was not met in City Council’s Feb. 3 vote to advance an ordinance eliminating minimum parcel sizes for detached ADUs in Established Neighborhoods 1, 2, and 3 – the city’s older, alley-served residential neighborhoods closest to downtown – not because the issue lacked discussion time, but because key information and public engagement lagged behind the policy decision.
Council’s 3–2 vote (with Mayor Yazzie and Councilor Koso opposed) moves Durango toward a nearly 50% increase in the number of lots eligible for detached ADUs in its oldest neighborhoods. Under current rules, 1,106 lots in EN-1, EN-2, and EN-3 are eligible. The Community Development Commission’s recommendation – modestly reducing minimum lot sizes in EN2 and EN3 – would have increased that number to 1,225. Instead, the ordinance before council to eliminate all lot size requirements would push total eligibility to 1,625 lots.
Not all of those parcels would qualify. Existing standards for design, setbacks, parking, lot coverage, and floor area would still apply, and many lots would be screened out. Even so, the magnitude of the change matters, particularly in neighborhoods already absorbing cumulative impacts.
Council and staff have been discussing ADU changes for roughly five months. What is striking is not the timeline, but what was missing. Materially revised data was added to the council packet just one day before the vote, with no public notice or opportunity for review. Staff later acknowledged earlier figures relied on county data rather than more accurate city measurements. Correcting errors is appropriate; presenting substantially different numbers at the eleventh hour is not.
This was also precisely the kind of policy change that warranted robust public engagement, including an Engage Durango process, at council’s direction. That did not happen. Since the ADU program began in 2014, the city has approved about 160 units – roughly a dozen per year. Yet it has never systematically asked residents in the most affected neighborhoods how those units are working in practice. Internal discussion, however lengthy, does not substitute for learning from the people living with the results.
Equally troubling is how the city treated the work of its own advisory body. Council asked the Community Development Commission to review this proposal. After months of deliberation, the CDC recommended targeted reductions to minimum lot sizes in EN-2 and EN-3 – not their elimination. Council was not required to adopt that recommendation wholesale, but it did owe the commission and the public a clear explanation of why those limits were discarded entirely. That explanation never came.
The city also lacks up-to-date compliance information for the ADU program. Staff have acknowledged that some required biennial affidavits are not current, records are incomplete on lease-term compliance, and at least 70 ADUs exist without full approval, while enforcement capacity remains limited. Expanding eligibility by hundreds of parcels without addressing these gaps puts policy ahead of accountability.
Opposition to this ordinance is not opposition to housing. Many residents support ADUs as one tool among many. But support depends on trust – that rules are enforced, data is accurate, and public input meaningfully informs decisions, not follows them.
Durango’s 2014 ADU regulations were built through extensive collaboration among residents, planners, and council. Subsequent amendments have steadily weakened those original guardrails. Eliminating minimum parcel sizes for detached units in the most affected neighborhoods dismantles a central compromise that made the program workable.
Good governance requires more than good intentions. It requires clear data, transparent process, and respect for community engagement – especially when advisory commissions are asked to invest time and expertise.
Council still has time, before the Feb. 17 second reading, to pause, clearly address the CDC’s recommendations, and engage residents honestly about the scale and consequences of this change.
Durango does not need faster decisions. It needs durable ones – built with the community, informed by complete data, and grounded in trust.
This editorial has been updated to reflect the correct total number of eligible ADUs if lot sizes are eliminated as 1,625, not 2,144, a nearly 50% increase in eligible lots, not 100%.
