Custer County planning commission advances major zoning-resolution updates, debates STR and road‑access rules

The Custer County Planning Commission voted to forward proposed updates to the county zoning resolution to the Board of County Commissioners, sending the draft to the BOCC for a public hearing with amendments approved by the commission.

Staff and commissioners reviewed a lengthy set of edits to definitions, references to state law and agencies, and technical citations (including Colorado Revised Statutes references and a House Bill citation in the appendix). The commission moved multiple definitions from appendices into the main text, corrected typographical and acronym inconsistencies (for example, CDPHE and CPW), and updated building‑code references (discussion about replacing UBC references with IBC).

Substantive policy changes discussed at length included: - On‑site wastewater systems (OWTS) and vault systems: commissioners clarified where OWTS language appears, added biosolid language originally discussed at earlier workshops, and explicitly recognized that the Custer County Commissioners act as the local Board of Health for variance and approval language.

- Signs and dark‑sky guidance: commissioners removed provisions that allowed oversized sign permits and discussed including a dark‑sky pamphlet as part of application materials.

- Green burials and cemetery rules: the draft references the state green‑burial statute and clarifies residency criteria for cemetery plots (e.g., residence more than six months per year aligns with state language).

- Short‑term rentals (STRs) and special‑use permits (SUPs): the commission debated multiple options to reduce conflict arising from STRs on private or privately maintained subdivision roads. Commissioners noted that although there is existing language requiring "proof of adequate street and transportation improvements to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed development," it has not been consistently enforced. To address recurring problems, commissioners recommended explicitly requiring, as part of SUP/STR applications, either: - a written, agreed maintenance plan for any portion of the access that is not publicly maintained; or - written permission from the entity that controls the access (for example, a homeowners association, a property owners’ organization, or private landowners whose easement is needed).

Commission members discussed the trade‑offs: strict wording would prevent some problematic STRs in subdivisions that use privately maintained roads, but commissioners favored language that would prevent applications from proceeding without clear evidence of access permission or a maintenance agreement. Staff said application‑level requirements and a compliance checklist will be added to the application materials.

Commissioners also discussed enforcement: staff reported that the existing requirement for proof of adequate street/transportation improvements should be enforced and that making cross‑references in the STR and SUP sections would reduce ambiguity.

After detailed line‑by‑line review and some additional editorial fixes, the commission voted to forward the zoning‑resolution package, with the discussed conditions and suggested application‑level language, to the BOCC for the required public hearing and final action.