Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deed Restrictions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County tables proposed ADU deed‑restriction covenant and impact‑fee credit pending code alignment
Summary
The board tabled consideration of a draft covenant that would allow homeowners to receive affordable‑housing impact‑fee credit by deed‑restricting ADUs, citing inconsistencies with the 2023 deed‑restriction template and outstanding questions about R‑1 school‑district definitions and tenant qualification language.
Get email alerts on the Deed Restrictions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Miguel County staff presented a draft covenant June 3 that would allow homeowners to receive an affordable‑housing impact‑fee credit by voluntarily deed‑restricting secondary residential units (ADUs or caretaker units). The covenant would require continuous rental (with turnover/repair vacancies capped at three months), minimum 12‑month leases and specific occupant eligibility tied to the Telluride R‑1 school district or a multijurisdictional region.
During extended discussion commissioners and staff flagged multiple unresolved legal and administrative issues: inconsistencies between the draft covenant and the county’s 2023 deed‑restriction template (most notably different tenant‑qualification metrics and hours‑worked tests), ambiguity in the covenant’s geographic definition (whether to include the small portion of the Telluride R‑1 school district that lies in Dolores County), and uncertainty about whether land‑use code language or the covenant should be the authoritative place for long‑term ownership and tenant restrictions.
Given those open questions, staff asked for more time to reconcile the draft covenant with the 2023 documents and the land‑use code. The commissioners agreed to table the matter and directed staff to return with a reconciled covenant and any necessary code clarifications.
Next steps: staff will align the covenant with the county’s deed‑restriction templates, clarify the Telluride R‑1 definition and propose whether code changes or a single covenant location is preferable before returning the issue to the board.

