Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montezuma County weighs comprehensive‑plan changes and possible ordinance to tackle rubbish and blight
Summary
County staff outlined three options—keep the status quo with stronger voluntary cleanups, tighten land‑use threshold standards, or adopt a formal rubbish ordinance that would allow administrative removal and liens—then set a drafting timeline aimed at Planning & Zoning review in mid‑April.
Montezuma County commissioners heard a staff presentation on options to address what staff and commissioners described as accumulating rubbish and blight, and directed staff to draft amendment language for public review.
"Because Montezuma County is a statutory county, Montezuma County has those powers granted to it by the legislature, including the promotion of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the county," said Steven, a county staff member, explaining the legal basis staff considered for enforcement options. Steven outlined three broad approaches: keep the comp plan and rely on expanded voluntary measures; change threshold standards or allowed uses in the land‑use code to more precisely prohibit storing junk or allowing dilapidated structures; or adopt a county rubbish ordinance that would create an administrative pathway for removal.
Staff described the ordinance option as the most directly enforceable: it could establish notice and cure periods, an appeal step (often to the Board of County Commissioners), and a mechanism under which planning staff could seek an administrative entry and seizure warrant from a court to remove property deemed rubbish. Steven noted that fines, injunctions, contempt proceedings, and liens could follow existing enforcement under the Colorado Revised Statutes if property owners failed to comply.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly raised implementation capacity as a constraint. "Changing what we have on the books is not going to make that big of a difference because we don't have the staff to implement it," Steven said, adding that the county would likely need a dedicated position to manage outreach, enforcement steps, and coordination with landowners.
Several commissioners said they preferred starting the public process with the Planning & Zoning commission and then returning to the Board for a public hearing and potential land‑use code amendments or an ordinance. The Board set target dates for the next steps: staff aimed to circulate drafts internally by April 9 and to present materials to Planning & Zoning by their April 16 meeting, with a workshop or Board review tentatively planned for the week of April 13–14.
The Board did not take a formal vote on any ordinance at the workshop. Steven said staff will prepare draft language and present options during the public process so commissioners and the public can weigh in before the county pursues any code changes or adopts an ordinance.
