Commission tables countywide land‑use code amendment on nonconforming lots after strong public concern

Planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the San Miguel County Land Use Code on Jan. 8 that would clarify how the code treats legally created substandard parcels (lots created prior to 1972 that are smaller than the 35‑acre minimum). The draft language would allow such legally nonconforming lots to be developed with any principal, accessory or special use allowed in the applicable zone district and would explicitly allow them to seek special use permits subject to the code’s review and mitigation standards.

Staff said the amendment is intended to resolve internal inconsistencies between Section 5‑19 (nonconforming lots, uses and buildings) and several zone‑district standards so the county’s code matches long‑standing practice in some situations. "A nonconforming lot… may be developed with any principal, accessory, or special use allowed in the zone district in which it is located," staff read from the proposed definition and said it would not change minimum lot size standards or create new nonconforming parcels.

But the proposal drew sustained public opposition from residents, planning consultants and municipal officials who said the change could undermine the Wright's Mesa master plan and effectively double density and intensity on many lots without adequate public notice or safeguards. Planning consultant Chris Hawkins urged the commission to "slow this train down" and test the amendment against master‑plan policies. Attorney Stephanie Solomon, representing property owners Ken and CJ Watt, said the code already states a 35‑acre minimum for principal uses in certain zone districts and characterized the staff proposal as an attempt to retroactively legalize past approvals.

Norwood’s mayor and the Norwood Water Commission asked for locally accessible outreach and said they had not been engaged about changes that could affect municipal infrastructure; one mayoral representative asked that a public meeting be held in Norwood so local stakeholders could participate.

Commissioners raised similar tradeoffs: several said the special‑use permit (SUP) process provides a vehicle to review uses on smaller parcels, but others were concerned about enforcement of SUP conditions and the sheer number of potentially affected parcels (staff noted hundreds of substandard lots in some zone districts). Commissioners asked staff to prepare a map showing nonconforming parcels, to coordinate with the BOCC and to hold additional outreach in Norwood and other affected communities.

The commission did not vote to advance the draft; instead it tabled the amendment for further study, outreach and coordination with the BOCC and local jurisdictions.

Next steps: staff will prepare mapping and additional outreach materials and return the item to the commission after broader engagement and BOCC consultation.