Applicant withdraws special-use permit after San Miguel County planning panel debates code ambiguity and neighbor objections

San Miguel County planning staff and commissioners spent the December meeting debating whether a pending special-use permit (SUP) should proceed while the county drafts a land-use code amendment to address an apparent long-standing inconsistency. Neighbors urged the commission to deny the application; the applicant then withdrew the filing.

The debate centered on whether the existing land-use code allows a second principal use on a substandard parcel. "We believe the land use code language is clear and unambiguous, and I think we're all agreeing right now. It does not clearly allow a second principal use," said Stephanie Solomon, speaking on behalf of nearby property owners. Neighbors, including Ken Watt, described buying and building homes with the expectation that the code would prevent additional principal uses on adjacent substandard lots and urged the commission to deny the permit.

Applicant representatives and the property owner’s counsel told the commission they had been working quickly to address requested materials and that staff had advised them to pause while the county studied the threshold issue. "We're fully supportive ... of going forward with a continuance and kinda seeing where we end up in March," said the applicant’s counsel, who asked the commission for time to coordinate with staff.

County staff told the Commission they discovered an oversight in how prior SUPs had been issued on legally nonconforming lots and drafted a proposed code amendment intended to resolve that broader problem. Staff urged a continuance to allow the amendment process to move forward and to avoid prejudicing other applicants. "We did the research ... and realized that the questions raised have impacts beyond this single project," staff said when describing the proposed land-use code changes.

A commissioner moved to deny the application, citing lengthy noncompliance and the public perception that the county might be changing rules to benefit one applicant. The motion was seconded; before a final vote the applicant asked for a short recess and then notified the panel that it would withdraw the SUP "at this time." Staff said they would follow up with the building official and would not pursue fines immediately while they discuss the notice-of-violation process with the applicant.

Owner Paul Sherry, who said his operation employs about 60 people year-round, urged the commission to allow a continuance so the business could correct violations and avoid harms to employees and operations. The commission did not take a final action to approve or deny the SUP before the applicant withdrew; staff were directed to prepare a draft denial resolution if commissioners wished to consider that option at the January meeting.

The commission’s exchange highlighted the procedural distinction staff described between tabling (which can restart notice requirements) and calendared continuances that provide a target date for resuming review. Staff also reiterated that any decision on the SUP will be made based on the evidence before the commission at the time of resumption.

Next steps: the county will continue the land-use code amendment process and staff said they will contact the applicant about how to resolve the outstanding notice-of-violation while the amendment and any re-submission are considered.