Commissioners continue proposed zoning rules for temporary workforce housing after questions on impact fees and density

Planning staff presented a proposed zoning regulation amendment to add temporary workforce housing facilities as a special-use category and walked the Board of County Commissioners through the draft use standards and public comments from the West End.

Talmadge, a county planning staff member, told the board the draft would add temporary workforce housing as a special use in agricultural, commercial and industrial zones and that the language and use standards were provided in the packet. "It's being proposed to add temporary workforce housing facilities as a use by a special use in the general agricultural, commercial and industrial zone districts," he said.

Commissioners and staff discussed several recurring concerns raised in public comment, including whether the county could impose impact fees for special uses, the proposed three-year time limit with extensions, distance buffers from municipal properties, whether density should be measured on gross acreage or net buildable acreage, dark-sky lighting standards, proximity of housing to projects versus towns, water-supply and water-rights impacts, stormwater and drainage engineering, and requirements for reclamation and financial security if sites are not restored after use.

Commissioner Kirsten Copeland said more legal and comparative research was needed on impact fees and asked for a tutorial on how fees might be assessed and assigned given the special-use permit pathway. "I think we need a tutorial on impact fees or how the mechanism would be for appropriate assignment of fees," Copeland said. Planning staff and county attorney Julie Andrews said many of the issues can be addressed through conditions on a special-use permit but that the board may want specific regulatory language for items the public felt would not be mitigated at permit stage.

Members of the public who spoke included Dale Reed, a member of a development team for a Mountain Village project, who urged handling detailed mitigation at the special-use permit level rather than in the countywide zoning code. Grant Glaser, representing Western Uranium and speaking as a Nucla resident, said he supported the process and hoped it would enable development of a mill in the West End.

After questions and discussion, Commissioner Copeland moved and the chair seconded to continue the item to the May 20 meeting to allow legal review and additional analysis of impact fees and density measures. The motion passed with all present commissioners voting in favor; Commissioner Sean Pond was absent.

The item will return to the board on May 20 with additional legal input and any revised draft language or options staff develop.