Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates ag‑preservation options — Ag‑35 zoning, overlays and voluntary programs on the table
Summary
Commissioners and planning staff discussed several approaches to preserve farmland in Montrose County, including an Ag‑35 minimum lot size concept, tiered ag zones, overlays and voluntary rezoning or conservation incentives; staff will carry commission feedback to the Board of County Commissioners this summer.
Montrose County Planning Commission members spent the latter portion of their April meeting debating ways to protect agricultural land while balancing property‑rights concerns.
Staff explained that subdivisions divide land but do not change the list of allowed uses; zoning determines use. "The subdivision divides land. It doesn't determine use, but it does allow the landowner to transfer to a different entity. The zoning determines what uses are allowed," an agency official told the commission during the discussion. Commissioners and residents raised multiple options including creating an 'Ag 35' district (minimum 35‑acre lots), adopting multiple ag categories by soil class or distance from town, building overlay districts, encouraging voluntary enrollment in a preservation district, or using conservation easements and incentives.
Speakers emphasized tradeoffs. One participant noted the valley’s irrigation structure and the community reliance on irrigated acreage: "That 80,000 acres provides the irrigation water throughout the valley," he said, stressing the financial role irrigated acres play in funding water infrastructure. Commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about property‑rights impacts and the political difficulty of assigning existing parcels to a newly created zone. One commissioner noted that denying an otherwise compliant applicant could expose the county to litigation — a legal concern flagged during the exchange.
Staff said the commission’s feedback would inform discussions with the Board of County Commissioners this summer; planning staff expects to finish the current zoning amendment work by mid‑June and suggested scheduling a planning commission–BOCC work session in July to exchange ideas. Staff also mentioned ongoing conversations with city planning staff about directing growth toward town where infrastructure exists.
The commission did not adopt any new regulations at the meeting; members asked staff to continue research, consider soil‑class or service‑area approaches to avoid arbitrary boundaries and return with proposals for public outreach and more detailed analysis.
