Residents raise property-rights, transparency and economic concerns over draft land-use code

Public comment at the Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners meeting on June 13 focused on community worries about the county's new land use code and how the county solicited and summarized public input.

The handout you have in front of you, which was discussed during public comment, —the handout that you have in front of you has 6 themes that were discovered——'a speaker identified as Public Commenter said, explaining those themes were derived from a text survey and later processed by an artificial-intelligence tool.

Why it matters: commenters said the proposed 2025 code could reduce property values, limit permitted uses on rural acreage and create new barriers for small businesses and housing. They also said the public engagement process felt rushed and opaque, and they asked the county to clarify rules for multiuse residential (MUR) zones and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

In public remarks, Blaine Clark, who identified himself as a resident of Buena Vista, said the new designations for AR and RR zones effectively create what he called an "involuntary conservation easement" for some owners if the code restricts development on most of their land. Clark asked the board to consider potential conflicts of interest he called out involving a named conservancy director and to bear in mind the county's farm and ranch community when finalizing changes.

Other commenters described six recurring themes summarized in the handout: concerns that property rights and values could be reduced; that regulations may be overly restrictive for a rural county and could stifle local economic activity; possible misdesignation of zones and confusion about MUR rules; perceptions of a rushed process and lack of transparency; restrictions on ADUs and special-event rules; and broader worries that zoning changes would harm tourism, banking and housing affordability.

Planning staff and commissioners acknowledged the comments during the meeting and said the new land use code includes specific procedures to handle legacy errors and subdivision exemptions that can arise when past parcels were split without following current rules. Commissioners said they wanted to continue community conversations about the code and noted that the county's update was intended to create clearer administrative pathways for problems that surfaced during the transition from the 2014 code to the 2025 code.

The meeting record shows no formal action to change the draft code at the session; commissioners instead received the public comments and discussed next steps for outreach and clarifications.

Looking ahead, speakers asked the board to provide clearer comparisons between the 2014 and 2025 codes, to publish explicit examples of how ADU rules will apply to existing lots and to explain which parts of the code are administrative versus legislative so residents can better track how changes will affect their specific properties.