Political commentator and journalist Walter Lippman said that private property was the original source of freedom, and to some rural residents, that’s a concept thwarted by land-use and building regulations.
In La Plata County, code enforcement processes about 200 violations per year, enforcement officials estimate, and the department runs on a policy of working with violators to come into compliance. But for disgruntled neighbors, that approach lacks consequence, and makes them skeptical that the land-use code rewrite underway will accomplish much. The county recently hired Texas-based Kendig Keast Collaborative to rewrite the land-use codes, and initial meetings and a county tour occurred earlier this month. A draft of the new code is expected in about a year.
Behind the leafy buffer on the eastern side of County Road 250, Animas Valley resident Tom Williamson’s house abuts another that was converted to a duplex, which is not allowed in Animas Valley.
On the market for $879,000, the property had a single-family residence and detached guest house, but owners John and Marsha Holt, who now live out of state, installed a downstairs unit in the main house with a separate entrance, complete with utility attachments.
Last week, after The Durango Herald began reporting this story, a building inspector visited the residence, and the property passed final inspection. The Holts said they removed utility attachments in the downstairs unit a few months ago. County Building Director Butch Knowlton said Saturday that the building inspector observed as much last week, which means the structure is in compliance.
Williamson said he complained to code enforcement for years.
“It’s kind of a scandal,” he said. “Everyone knows it (code enforcement) is a joke.”
Code violations are categorized based on severity, with those that pose a human health risk or threat to life safety at top priority. Most are benign, but some residents say that shouldn’t affect the urgency of compliance.
“The process we’ve developed over the years is we take the position of wanting to work with people to get through our regulations,” Knowlton said. “In the building permit world, when people come through the door, we agree on things we all have to do. Sometimes we see deviatons when we do inspections, but there’s a concept of ‘we can work it out.’”
When the concept of zoning was introduced in the 1970s, residents rebuked the idea of land-use controls, and more and more, conflicting philosophies on property use are living next door to one another.
“There is an attitude change coming to this community, and it’s a difficult transition,” Knowlton said.
By 2018, the county expects to have a new land-use code in place. It’s uncertain what the regulations will look like, but some residents want stipulations that don’t currently exist, including policy that prohibits excessive debris cluttering property.
On County Road 122, neighbors have lodged complaints that a residential lot littered with rubble, and where animals roam freely, is an issue of aesthetics, safety and property values.
“He has loose building material all over the yard. It’s a windy mesa, and his garbage sometimes blows onto surrounding properties,” one neighbor said on the condition of anonymity. “If this is residential, which it is, why isn’t there enforcement for what you can accumulate on the land?”
Fielding junk complaints is routine for code enforcement officer Marianna Spishock, but in those cases, there is no code to enforce.
“We’ve visited that location,” Spishock said. “It’s a messy property with a lot of stuff, but there is no human health risk. Since the county doesn’t have a junk ordinance, there’s no way we can directly become involved in that. We can’t require people to keep their yards kept.”
Jim and Diane Benesch have a similar problem at their Allison ranch, which sits along the sparsely developed County Road 330 where they’ve lived since 1997.
Diane Benesch said she contacted the county in April about a charred and gutted trailer sitting on her neighbor’s property. It burned in a fire last spring.
“It looks like a dumpsite, and we feel it should be cleaned up,” Benesch said. “I cannot encourage moving to the county when nothing is done to protect our environment. We don’t know what to do. You look at some of these ‘agricultural’ properties – is it a farm or a junkyard? This is turning into a blighted area.”
Knowlton said code enforcement sets timeframes for property owners to rectify violations, but there is no hard and fast deadline that applies to every case.
“Sometimes we just can’t address what needs to be done in a timely manner,” he said.
As a relatively small community with large swaths of rural residential areas, La Plata County isn’t alone in its enforcement limitations.
Like La Plata County, Archuleta County’s code enforcement relies largely on complaints. Sherrie Vick, planning technician, said the department doesn’t have the resources to troll the county for violations.
“If people don’t complain, we don’t know,” Vick said.
When someone files a complaint, Archuleta County sends a letter to the violator. If there’s no response, the county makes a record of the breach at the clerk’s office. The violator has 30 days to fix the problem, or receive a fine for not obtaining a permit. The fine is 200 percent of the permit fee, which varies based on the project.
A permit for a 1,000-square-foot addition would cost $840, which means a fine of $1,680 if the addition was unauthorized.
“We do our best,” Vick said. “The written notice is a passive thing. They can choose not to respond.”
A Colorado statute authorizes a county attorney to bring violators to court, where a judge can order fines up to $100 a day, or $3,000 a month. But, Vick said, “I don’t know of any jurisdiction that does that. Most of the time it’s because the county attorney is busy doing other things.”
“It’s difficult to get to that point,” Knowlton said. “If we have 25 calls a week and took that stance, can you imagine the staff time it would take? And during construction season, we see more calls. We don’t have enough staff to respond immediately and push the case to the court level. We do our best to resolve it.”
County spokeswoman Megan Graham said the amount of staff resources spent on bringing civil suits would negate any revenue that could come from fining violators. Furthermore, Deputy District Attorney Christian Champagne said civil code violations do not rise to the level the District Attorney’s office can handle.
At times, spats over violations have escalated to litigation among neighbors.
In August last year, Brad Buffet’s neighbors on County Road 203 applied for a permit to build a 1,188-square-foot accessory shed on their property.
The owners, Jeff Estes and Wendy Aber, who sell bikes, initially questioned county staff about using it for a small art studio to design their merchandise, but staff advised them that code confines building in the area to single-family residential. Knowlton said no commercial activity was detected during an inspection in recent weeks, and the shed is considered an accessory structure – not a code violation.
But that’s a difficult gray area for a neighbor.
Late last year, Buffet filed a civil lawsuit requesting a court order for the structure to be removed, arguing it was built with commercial intent – and now obstructs his Animas Valley view.
“I have an abandoned bike shop in front of my house,” Buffet said. “It was planned specifically for bike sales on residential property.”
The problem is that code violations are largely complaint-driven, and whether a report is made is contingent on relations between neighbors, Aber said.
“We have a right to a permit and to build on our property,” she said. “I’m third generation, and this is the push and pull of Old Durango and New Durango. This would be unheard of in the ’80s.”
The county said the point of working amicably with violators is to set reasonable deadlines that will yield results if the violation is not a hazard. That’s where residents disagree on principle – and question whether and how a new land-use code will be enforced.
If they want to see change in the code, Knowlton said now is the time for people to get involved and voice their concerns during the rewrite process.
“Right now, if you make a complaint, they’ll tell the violator, ‘That’s bad, don’t do that.’ Then they’re done,” Williamson said. “Then if you return a few weeks later, they put a notice on the books indicating the property is in violation. But builders, contractors, Realtors all know the rule: Nothing’s going to happen.”
jpace@durangoherald.com
