Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOCC upholds planning director's interpretations, strikes single Lot R factual finding, and directs staff to prepare resolutions
Summary
On Dec. 17 the San Miguel County BOCC reviewed two appeals of planning director written interpretations related to Telluride Regional Airport activity. The board affirmed the director's interpretations but instructed staff to remove one factual sentence about Lot R and directed preparation of written resolutions to memorialize the findings; commissioners also accepted staff's clarified findings on permit-review processes and asked for follow-up.
The San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners on Dec. 17 considered two appeals challenging written interpretations issued by the planning director about land-use enforcement and the airport review process.
Appeal 9b asked the BOCC to overturn or otherwise correct a factual statement in the planning director's written interpretation concerning whether Lot R (a parcel adjacent to airport property) is governed by the Telluride Regional Airport master plan. Planning staff recommended the director's legal interpretation be upheld but noted the appellants' factual request about Lot R was not properly framed as an interpretation challenge. The county's code-enforcement officer reported notices of violation had been sent and followed up; a compliance date was set and staff said the airport cooperated in arranging storage/relocation of equipment. After discussion the board voted to affirm the planning director's interpretation as consistent with the land use code but to strike the factual sentence(s) about Lot R in Finding 2; the BOCC directed staff to prepare a formal resolution for adoption in January 2026.
Appeal 9c asked whether development applications tied to the airport should be subject to a two-step (public) review under section 5-401(c) and related provisions, or could proceed under administrative development-permit review when the master plan or SUP already contemplated the use. Appellants argued for a broad reading of "all reviews relevant to activities of local and state interest" and cited cross-references in figures 3-1 and 3-5 and code sections that point to two-step review for activities in airport impact areas. Staff and several commissioners explained statutory distinctions between the airport impact area (FAA "imaginary surfaces") and the county's public-zone/master-plan process, and noted that certain matters (for example, wetlands or SUP amendments) have been handled through two-step review in the past. After extended discussion the BOCC amended the planning director's written interpretation to reflect staff's clarified findings: development that is expressly contemplated and parameterized in an approved airport master plan or SUP may be implemented through a development permit subject to administrative review, while development not contemplated by the master plan or public zone standards must follow applicable land-use procedures, including a master-plan amendment and potential two-step review when the code requires it. The board voted unanimously to adopt the clarified interpretation and directed staff to draft a resolution for a future meeting.
