San Miguel County staff recommend option to revert recent deed‑restriction signings; board schedules review and wider public comment

San Miguel County officials spent much of a June 18 meeting addressing long‑running questions about deed restrictions used to preserve affordable housing — the county’s land‑use‑code (LUC) restrictions and the separate deed covenants administered by the San Miguel Regional Housing Authority (SMRHA). Staff said new legal review changed how the county will interpret and administer many deed restrictions going forward.

Deputy County Manager Jared Biggs and County Attorney Maura Fahey told the Board of County Commissioners the county sought outside legal guidance to clarify whether a land‑use‑code restriction on a property is governed by the code version in effect when the property was first deed‑restricted (a “vintage” rule) or by subsequent amendments to the code. Biggs said the legal advice now in hand supports a status‑quo interpretation for most properties: a land‑use restriction generally applies according to the code version that existed when the deed restriction was first recorded, unless the deed itself expressly states the property is subject to the land‑use‑code “as amended.” Fahey said some deed records do explicitly adopt the “as amended” language; in those cases the property would remain subject to later code changes.

How staff will handle transactions going forward

Biggs recommended an operational approach for both new and recent transactions: - New buyers will be given the option to accept the seller’s existing restriction or to sign the county’s newer covenant. Staff said the county will record acknowledgments clearly in the chain of title so future buyers can tell which restriction applies. - For properties sold since June 1, 2022, staff proposed offering an option during the county’s next biannual deed‑restriction compliance cycle for owners to “revert” to the previous owner’s restriction. That 3‑year window reflects the county’s compliance efforts over the last three years and the statute of limitations staff was advised applies to these records; Biggs said the 06/01/2022 cutoff aligns with a recent period of enhanced compliance activity.

Staff emphasized that many deed restrictions are unique and that the county will make determinations on a property‑by‑property basis. They warned that resolving which code version governs a parcel requires research of plats, recorded deeds and amendments — a work‑intensive process. Biggs said staff will compile historic versions of the land‑use code and other record evidence so owners can see which version applied when their property was restricted.

Compliance cycle and notification

SMRHA is preparing the county’s fall compliance mailings. Biggs said owners who sold since June 1, 2022 — roughly 30–35 properties, he said — will receive a notification and have an opportunity to request reversion during the compliance cycle. Pre‑compliance notices will go out in early September; compliance notices with the option to revert would follow mid‑September, with 21 days to return normal compliance paperwork and an additional up‑to‑60‑day decision window for the reversion option.

Public concerns and next steps

During a lengthy public comment period, multiple residents urged a broader review, saying some owners were told they had no choice in prior years and were pressured to sign updated covenants. Callers and commenters asked that the county look further back than the proposed three‑year window and make public any previously issued exceptions or administrative waivers. Citizens also asked for clearer, searchable public records showing which restrictions apply to which parcels.

Biggs and Fahey told the board they will prepare follow‑up materials: a compilation of historical LUC versions, a review of exception records, and legal guidance on whether a broader look‑back is advisable. Commissioners said they expect staff to return with a detailed recommendation at a subsequent meeting and signaled willingness to extend the timeframe if the legal and factual record supports it.

Why it matters: clarity for buyers, lenders and enforcement

Commissioners and residents said the dispute over deed‑restriction administration had caused market uncertainty for buyers and sellers, raised questions among lenders and created friction with owners who say they were not properly advised. Fahey said the county’s new interpretation will tend to protect owners from later, more restrictive code changes unless the owner had previously consented in recorded documents. She emphasized the practical consequences: owners and title examiners must read the deed history for each parcel to know which document governs.

Speakers - Jared Biggs, Deputy County Manager, San Miguel County (government) - Maura Fahey, County Attorney, San Miguel County (government) - Pam Shifrin, Executive Director, San Miguel Regional Housing Authority (SMRHA) (government/authority) - Public commenters: Lee Rufa (Altusaro resident), Shelley Duplant (Aldisoro Ranch HOA), Matthew Legault (buyer), Ginny Gordon (former Lawson Hill HOA board member), others

Clarifying details - Staff will offer reversion option to owners who bought property between 2022-06-01 and the present (staff estimate 30–35 properties). 06/01/2022 chosen to align with period of enhanced compliance and statute‑of‑limitations considerations. - Historical practice: many original LUC restrictions date to the early 1990s; a separate covenant approach began in 2010 and has been amended over time (2016, 2021, 2023). - Record differences: some deeds/warranty deeds may contain “subject to land use code as amended” language; those properties remain subject to the evolving code.

Community relevance - Geographies: Lawson Hill, Aldisoro, Rio Vistas, Pinion Park, San Miguel County unincorporated areas - Impact groups: deed‑restricted homeowners, prospective buyers, lenders, HOAs

Topics and newsroom scoring - Primary topic: housing/deed restrictions - Topics: [{"name":"deed-restrictions","justification":"Covers legal interpretation and administrative changes to a large portfolio of deed‑restricted homes; affects many residents and future transactions.","scoring":{"topic_relevance":0.99,"depth_score":0.95,"opinionatedness":0.04,"controversy":0.95,"civic_salience":0.92,"impactfulness":0.88,"geo_relevance":1.00}}]

Actions - Staff recommendation (no final BOCC vote recorded on June 18): - Offer a reversion option during the fall 2025 compliance cycle for sales since 2022-06-01 (approx. 30–35 properties). - Continue compilation of historical LUC versions, search for administrative exceptions, and return to BOCC with legal recommendation on broader look‑back and next steps.

Meeting context - Engagement level: high public turnout for comments; extended Q&A with staff; staff requested additional time to compile records. - Implementation risk: medium (property‑by‑property legal complexity and resource needs for record compilation). - History: Deed‑restriction policy traces to 1991 LUC; covenant model introduced 2010 and amended in 2016, 2021 and 2023.

Ending: County staff will pursue property‑specific research, compile land‑use‑code histories and exception records, and return to the board with recommendations; commissioners indicated willingness to extend the reversion window if justified and asked staff to provide sufficient public notice for the compliance cycle.