During its regular meeting held on Tuesday, Feb. 17, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) voted unanimously to table a resolution to amend the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations (LUR), and to consider a new resolution addressing temporary permits for recreational vehicle (RV) living at its March 17 meeting.
County Manager Longinos Gonzalez provided the BoCC with information on the proposed LUR changes earlier in the day during a work session, noting, “This is something we’ve been working on for a while.”
He explained that the changes first went through the county’s planning commission, which approved a recommendation of changes in a 3-1 vote during its regular meeting held on Jan. 22.
Those proposed changes included adding an entirely new section to the LUR that would allow temporary use permits (TUPs) for long-term RV occupancy. Two separate TUPs were proposed, with one being a 180-day permit that could be renewed up to three times, and the other being a two-year permit that could be renewed once.
Each permit would have mostly the same requirements such as landowner authorization, proof of water supply, use of generators and a site inspection performed by county code enforcement.
Specific items noted for the 180-day permit include the use of composting toilets or bag-style systems. The two-year permit would require electric service by a public utility and a permitted septic system.
Gonzalez explained that the proposed changes have been brought up due to an expired resolution from 2021 that first allowed a 180-day TUP for landowners to stay in their RVs on their own property.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini commented that “this changed quite a bit” at the planning commission level, specifically in regard to the amount of times a permit could be renewed.
During the work session, Commissioner Veronica Medina invited a constituent to share his experience with obtaining and renewing his TUP every six months in order to live in his RV while also having a permitted septic system installed and being hooked up to a public electricity provider.
The constituent explained that he was mostly concerned with the inspection of his property every six months, describing it as intrusive, humiliating and embarrassing.
“I have to have a county employee come out and come into my home and say it’s OK for me to live there,” he said.
The constituent acknowledged property nuisance issues in the Aspen Springs subdivision, noting, “Some of us are trying to do it right.”
He explained that he is living in his RV while building his home and has had proper permitted utilities installed, while also pointing out the inconvenience of taking time out of his day to meet with code enforcement officials on a recurring basis.
“Then they turn around and they threaten me with, if I don’t comply, I’m gonna get a $100-a-day fine,” he added.
The constituent also clarified that he is not “anti-regulation,” understanding the need for an initial inspection.
He then spoke about properties that could be nuisance cases.
“Those are the ones that are making it bad for all of us,” he said.
Commissioner John Ranson commented that the county tried to tackle a nuisance ordinance during his first term, saying, “It’s long overdue.”
Ranson noted the county recently dealt with one nuisance case that took nearly eight years to resolve, mentioning there are plenty of other cases piling up.
“We don’t have the manpower, we don’t have the wherewithal to go ahead and do something about this,” Ranson said.
Commissioner Warren Brown explained the initial resolution to allow TUPs for RV living in 2021 was because, “we just had so many people that didn’t have anywhere to live.”
He explained that the BoCC’s thought at the time was that it would be a good idea to give them some sense of belonging to be able to “put their roots down” by allowing land owners to live in RVs on their own property “while trying to get to a more-permanent” home.
The constituent commented that it is “unfair” that he as a landowner can not live in his RV on his own property when RV park tenants are not subject to the same regulations.
“It’s just wrong,” he said.
“I don’t disagree with you across the board,” Brown replied.
Medina commented that there needs to be some regulation to ensure health and safety for all people in the county, touching on the constituent’s comment of how RV parks are not subject to the same regulations.
She explained that the county is telling people it’s fine for people to live in an RV at an RV park, but not on their own property.
“To me, that just does not make any sense at all,” she said.
She mentioned that if people are investing in the county by purchasing property and paying taxes, they should not be penalized for taking a long time to transition from living in an RV to a more permanent structure.
“We need to be enforcing real issues in our community,” Medina said while referencing pictures of potential property nuisance cases.
She also commented that the county is trying to create more rules and regulations, “when we can’t even enforce the rules and regulations that we have on our books now.”
Medina noted that she’d like to see a five-year permit and a “minimal fee,” describing the proposed fee of $500 as “a little outrageous.”
Two public comments were given on the matter during the land use hearing for the proposed LUR changes at the BoCC’s regular meeting.
The first commenter indicated he is in support of the change, but cautioned the BoCC of other issues it might create and urged it to take a different approach to the whole situation.
“You’re so lucky you can change the land use code and you can make our community function better than it is right now,” he said, noting that an updated community plan will also help.
He mentioned the county could create different zoning types for different neighborhoods to allow for varying uses, rather than sticking with a blanketed zoning style.
Gonzalez then noted that two residents spoke at the planning commission’s meeting providing general support for the restrictive changes that were being proposed.
The second commenter during the land use hearing stated he was opposed to the proposed changes, noting that the code defines an RV as a temporary structure, while urging the BoCC to “really think of the big picture.”
Ranson commented that he agreed with the first public commenter in that the county could take a different approach and define different zoning for different areas throughout the county.
“Is this what we want long term for Pagosa Springs? I have a hard time with that,” Ranson said.
Medina commented that she does not like a lot of the language in the proposed changes.
“For me, it wasn’t about affordable housing,” she said, “I think for me, this is about property rights” and allowing people to do what they want on their own property “within reason.”
She noted there are portions of the proposed changes she does like, but “there’s a lot of it that I don’t like.”
Medina suggested potentially tabling the matter, indicating that an inspection every six months may not be necessary.
“I don’t see this as the future of our county,” she said.
Brown provided comments on the background of the resolution that initially allowed 180-day TUPs for RV living, noting that the county was experiencing a need for housing at the time.
Brown also mentioned that in speaking with Gonzalez, there may be other options for residents who have proper permitted utilities while living in an RV where they might fall under an entirely different section of the LUR.
Brown also commented that he supports land rights, but, at the same time, does not want to see a bunch of mini trailer parks popping up.
“Things can get out of hand quickly,” he said, also agreeing with his fellow commissioners that changes to LUR being proposed is not the vision for Archuleta County.
Gonzalez explained that part of the reason in bringing the proposed changes forward is due to the expired regulation and all residents currently being in violation.
“I think something has to be done,” he said. “Everyone is currently in violation of our land use code.”
“I think we should do something,” Giovannini added.
She explained that simply renewing the expired resolution would mean all of the previous restrictions and requirements would be reactivated.
Giovannini also noted that the BoCC could consider a new resolution to address the matter in a reasonable time, suggesting a month from now at its meeting.
There was a question as to when the resolution expired, with the suggestion being made that the resolution expired two years ago.
Gonzalez later indicated in an email to The SUN the last resolution expired June 2023.
Medina then motioned to table the matter until March 17 to consider a different resolution with different verbiage at that time.
The motion was seconded by Ranson and unanimously approved.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>