The Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted to readopt Resolution 2025-40, which the board described as adopting previously approved amendments to the county Land Use Code and zoning map.

Public comment included sustained objections to aspects of the amended land-use code. Alan Sealing, a resident, said he had for 18 months flagged parts of the land-use code he called potential "takings," particularly around setbacks from rivers and streams. He said the code included a 150-foot setback in some contexts and that "there is no justification or illustrations showing why that was necessary across the county." He urged the board to consider individual circumstances rather than a countywide, broad-brush rule.

Blaine Clark and other public speakers raised concerns about changes to density and agricultural zoning standards; Clark said he believed revisions reduced rural agriculture density from an earlier 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres to larger-acreage requirements introduced in August 2024.

Another public commenter warned the board the land-use changes had proceeded "prematurely" and threatened litigation. The speaker said a draft complaint and depositions would force transparency on the process and alleged conflicts of interest; they explicitly referenced a lack of opportunities for private-property owners to present evidence during the process.

A commissioner apologized for not asking whether anyone wanted to pull the land-use item from the consent agenda for comment before it was adopted earlier, then moved to reapprove Resolution 2025-40; the motion carried.

Why this matters: Land-use code amendments affect property rights, development potential, and long-term land management. Public commenters raised legal and equity concerns, including potential regulatory takings claims and conflicts of interest related to planning commission membership and housing authority relationships.

What happens next: The resolution was adopted; public commenters stated they are preparing litigation and depositions. Commissioners said they will continue to engage with the public and counsel on implementation and transparency.

Ending note: The board's adoption of the amendments does not preclude legal challenges; commenters said they intend to pursue litigation if they believe the county has enacted regulations that improperly affect private-property rights.