Unincorporated residents tell San Juan County: define 'rural' and pause land-use changes

Unincorporated residents and a citizens’ committee urged the San Juan County Commission in May to slow or rewrite proposed land-use rules after a months-long survey showed deep mistrust and broad opposition to enforcement-first approaches.

The survey presentation, delivered by Dave Goodman and Sarah Goodman on behalf of the Public Awareness Committee, told commissioners that among 236 responses from unincorporated residents, 73% reported dissatisfaction with how they are represented in county planning and nearly 79% said they do not receive county email notices.

The committee said the term rural carries different meanings for residents and for some decisionmakers, and that the majority of respondents favor fewer regulations, protection of private-property rights and expanded allowance for homestead or micro-enterprise businesses on agricultural land. “We asked the community directly what definition of rural best applies to San Juan County,” Sarah Goodman said. According to the presenters, 50% said rural equals low population areas; 46% said it means large-acreage agricultural homesteads with minimal urban services.

The survey also showed strong opposition to a county code-enforcement position. The committee said 87% of respondents did not support paying to have someone proactively seek and enforce land-use violations and argued that enforcement funds would be better spent on outreach, permitting support and small-business development.

Shannon Brooks, who spoke during public comment, urged commissioners to correct language in a recently posted job description that she said conflated building-code enforcement and broader “code compliance” duties. “This is an enforcer for the land-use ordinance,” Brooks said, reading from the posting and asking the county to fix wording that she said could be interpreted as policing private land.

Commissioners and staff responded that the county’s intent is building-code enforcement, not broad land-use policing. Commissioner Harvey (first name not provided in the record) told the meeting he did not intend “someone come in and heavy-handedly… say, you know what, you’ve got too many chickens,” and said he would personally follow up to clarify the website language. County staff agreed to revise the posting and to send follow-up communications to the committee.

The presenters asked the commission to “pause, revise with humility, and invite true community participation,” arguing the ordinance under consideration would “complicate instead of simplify” and risk deepening the disconnect between residents and county leadership.

Commissioners did not take an immediate legislative vote on the proposed ordinance during the presentation. They agreed to review the survey packet and follow up with staff to correct the job posting language and to improve public-notice and outreach channels before proceeding with ordinance decisions.