San Miguel County staff to draft resolution offering deed‑restriction reversion to 2010 covenant; commissioners set parameters

San Miguel County commissioners directed staff on July 16 to draft a resolution that would give many owners of deed‑restricted homes a one‑time option to revert to earlier restrictions, after several hours of legal briefing, public comment and commissioner discussion.

County staff recommended reviewing 32 properties transferred since June 1, 2022, and offering those owners a choice to return to the restriction that applied when their property was previously restricted — either the prior covenant or the land‑use‑code restriction. For the larger group of properties currently governed by county covenant templates, staff proposed offering a reversion to the 2010 covenant as a compromise to resolve owners’ concerns and clarify enforcement.

The recommendation, presented by county staff, summarized recent legal findings and a property inventory produced for the meeting. Staff said the county currently records 349 deemed‑restricted properties in the unincorporated area: about 110 are on the original land‑use‑code restriction, roughly 122 are on special, site‑specific covenants (Pinion Park, Rio Vistas and some multifamily sites), and 117 are on a county covenant template (various years). Of that 117, staff reported 98 are on versions issued between 2010 and 2021 and 19 are on the county’s 2023 covenant template. Staff recommended the three‑year review window (06/01/2022 to present) because it covers the period when the latest covenant changes were applied, the county’s most recent compliance cycle and the statute of limitations staff said would apply.

“Based on the answers to those legal questions, our recommendation was to offer the option to revert to the previous deed restriction for all owners who transferred ownership of property during the last three years,” county staff member Jared said during the presentation. Staff said that offering the 2010 covenant to owners on covenants would address many owners’ concerns while avoiding a broader reversion to older, more ambiguous versions of the land‑use code.

Commissioner discussion centered on tradeoffs between clarity and maintaining deed‑restricted housing for locally employed residents. Commissioners repeatedly cited the program’s stated purpose — "to preserve a sufficient supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of locally employed residents in the R‑1 school district" — and debated whether reverting properties to older land‑use code provisions would open units to buyers who work remotely and are not locally employed.

“I’m trying to frame this conversation ... which is that whatever ground we give towards the land use code, we’re opening up the door ... to future tech pros,” Commissioner Waring said, urging caution about broad reversion. Commissioner Galena and others echoed concerns about protecting the local workforce and preserving limited deed‑restricted stock.

Public commenters urged a mixture of fairness and expediency. Shelly, an HOA representative who has been collecting owners’ questions, said the slide presentation helped clarify differences between covenants and the land‑use code but repeated calls for the county to compile and publish the various governing documents. Laura Ellison, a real‑estate professional, told commissioners that buyers must “know what they’re buying,” while residents including Jenny Gordon and others urged the county to correct earlier administrative practices that, they said, had left owners unclear about their options.

Some commenters urged the opposite concern: that increased covenant restrictions (for example, the 2023 covenant’s household qualifying income test) can reduce available housing by making it harder for small landlords and sellers to re‑rent or transfer units. “The way that you lower prices is more supply. We need more affordable housing. More housing,” said Dylan Brooks, a resident.

After public input and further discussion the board gave staff direction: prepare a resolution for a near‑term meeting that would (a) offer the 2010 covenant as the one‑time reversion option to owners currently on county covenant templates, (b) for owners in the three‑year review window (06/01/2022–present) allow them to choose the restriction that applied when their property was previously restricted (either the prior land‑use‑code restriction or the prior covenant), (c) treat property transfers currently in process as eligible for the same option, and (d) exclude from the reversion offer any properties identified by commissioners as creating a conflict of interest (commissioners requested exclusion of their own properties from the program). Staff said it would return the drafted resolution and an implementation timeline for the board’s consideration as soon as the next available meeting; the board asked staff to prioritize a short turnaround.

No final ordinance or covenant change was adopted at the July 16 session; the board’s direction instructs staff to prepare documents for a future formal decision. Commissioners said they expected additional public comment opportunities when the resolution is published and scheduled for action.

The meeting included repeated legal clarifications from county staff: (1) a property’s applicable land‑use‑code restriction is the version in effect when the property was first restricted unless the deed explicitly says the restriction applies “as amended,” (2) deed restrictions generally run with the land and bind successors unless the owner and county specifically agree otherwise, and (3) third parties such as title companies or lenders cannot unilaterally amend deed restrictions. Staff advised owners to review their deed restriction language and noted the county was working to compile historical land‑use‑code versions and covenant templates for public reference.

What’s next: staff will draft a resolution reflecting the board’s direction, prepare an implementation timeline and notice process, and return to the board with a formal proposal for public notice and potential adoption. Commissioners signaled they wanted the resolution prepared quickly and additional hearings scheduled so affected owners can comment on the final language.

A copy of the county presentation and the staff inventory was discussed during the meeting; staff agreed to assemble and publish the underlying documents and to work with the San Miguel Regional Housing Authority on administration. The county did not adopt any rule changes or record any vote on the substantive reversion policy at the July 16 meeting.

Ending: County staff and commissioners emphasized that the proposed reversion would be a one‑time opportunity intended to correct past confusion about owners’ options and to protect the overall supply of deed‑restricted homes while preserving the county’s stated local‑employment purpose for those units.