The Archuleta County Planning Commission discussed and approved a recommendation of proposed changes to the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations (LUR) during its Jan. 22 meeting.
The recommendation of changes was approved by a split vote of 3-1.
The recommendation includes proposed changes to Section 3 of the LUR, regarding to temporary use of recreational vehicles (RVs) for long-term occupancy, and will go before the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for final approval.
The Jan. 22 planning commission agenda explains that the changes are intended to address an expired resolution that was previously adopted by the BoCC “to support the affordable housing shortage in the county.”
Planning Manager Melissa Ryan presented proposed changes, explaining that a new subsection to the code was being proposed for RV temporary use permits (TUPs).
Ryan noted that long-term occupancy of an RV is permitted “only with an approved long-term RV occupancy permit,” subject to multiple conditions.
Ryan’s original proposed conditions included a 180-day RV TUP permit option that allows temporary occupancy of an RV for up to 180 consecutive days and is renewable every 180 days.
“Permits are intended for long-term housing and not for short-term or vacation stays,” Ryan noted.
Discussion amongst the planning commission brought up concerns about this permit being renewable without a limitation being set in place.
Other proposed requirements for the permit state that water must be hauled, delivered, from a well or supplied by other lawful method, and that sanitation must comply with an approved waste disposal plan through a permitted septic, public sewer, composting toilet or approved bag-style system.
Ryan noted that properties must also be in compliance with zoning setbacks and standards, and be able to demonstrate legal access for emergency services.
The other RV permit discussed was the “five-year utility connected RV occupancy permit, which would allow long-term residential occupancy of an RV for up to five years when connected to approved permanent utilities,” according to Ryan’s proposed changes.
Discussion amongst the planning commissioners expressed that the five-year length for this permit may be too long, with planning commissioner Peter Beaudry suggesting that four years is adequate time for residents to make improvements to their property.
Ryan’s original proposed changes note that a renewal of the five-year permit would require reinspection of utility and continued compliance.
The proposed changes also include general provisions that either one TUP or one long-term RV permit may be issued for parcels less than three acres in size, with larger parcels having a maximum of any two RV permits.
“Those requirements are what we have in our checklists currently,” Ryan said, explaining that she mirrored the county’s current TUP checklist.
Multiple public comments were given on the matter prior to the planning commission making recommended changes to the proposed amendments and voting on a motion.
The first commenter asked if the five-year permit could be renewed indefinitely, suggesting there should be a requirement that a septic system be installed within a certain amount of time, claiming there are some residents who dump gray water directly into the ground.
He also commented on the regulation of the number of permitted RVs allowed on a property, stating, “That regulation has not been enforced at all.”
The commenter also mentioned how it is “unfair” for people to live in RVs indefinitely without proper permitting while others have to pay for permits.
“Seems like there’s just a double standard in this county,” he said.
Another commenter stated, “I am against this as it’s written today,” explaining that this is not a long-term solution and that the permits should have a timeframe “to keep things moving forward in the right direction for the community to hopefully have houses at some point.”
He also mentioned that “RVs aren’t meant to be lived in permanently.”
The next commenter mentioned the BoCC recently turned down a tiny home village project.
“I’m blown away that we’re gonna let people live in RVs for five years when our commissioners turned down a tiny home village,” he said, noting that people can’t put in mobile homes in groupings in “our vast county” for people to live in an actual structure, but the county will give permission to live in something “that is not suitable to live in.”
“It’s just wrong. We’re taking the wrong approach,” he added.
The commenter clarified that he is “all in favor” of people living in RVs and approving the proposed LUR amendments, but stated, “It’s wrong what we’re doing and what we need to do is allow mobile homes in our community,” along with allowing additional dwellings on parcels.
He then referenced a downtown property within town limits that is one-sixth of an acre in size and has four dwelling units on it.
“And we love it,” he said, “But the county has this mindset that, ‘Oh this millionaire has a big parcel here, so we can’t let mobile homes be over here,’ and that’s wrong; that’s totally wrong for our community.”
Ryan explained that the county also has recreational use in its LUR, and a temporary use permit for those living in an RV while building a house.
She also explained that allowing different types of waste disposal for the 180-day permit requires photos or receipts, proving the resident is “dumping legitimately.”
In response to a question from the planning commission, Ryan explained that two types of RV permits were being proposed: the 180 day and the five year.
Ryan further explained that the resolution initially allowing the 180-day RV permit was extended one time with an expiration on the actual resolution, which was last summer.
“It just was never renewed,” she said.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini explained that people were approaching the county for the 180-day RV permit but had a proper septic system and electrical system installed, adding that is where the suggestion of a more long-term solution like a five-year permit stemmed from.
County Manager Longinos Gonzalez commented that “everybody’s technically out of compliance because the extension had expired.”
Planning commissioner Mont McAllister indicated that “we need to have an end” for the number of times the 180-day and five-year permits could be issued.
Beaudry commented that the resolution was “just to be a temporary solution,” noting he had a “big problem” with the five-year length permit.
Planning commissioner Peter Vecvangs commented, “I don’t see why you should be restricted on your choice of living,” noting there is nothing in the code that says residents have to build a house.
He explained that people live in all kinds of different structures and that if someone goes through the process of improving their land with proper septic and electrical systems, “then it’s your property.”
He added that there will always be people who push limits or ignore rules, but that does not mean the county should in turn limit other people.
McAllister noted that the goal is to get something in place to allow people who are currently living in RVs under the expired resolution to continue doing so.
Vecvangs then asked if adding this language and approving the proposed amendments is something the commission wants to do given that it might “all be thrown out the window” under new LURs, planning and building codes that the county is planning on revising.
The planning commissioners then discussed the possibility of recommending that the BoCC renew the expired resolution.
“Instead of adding in all this new verbiage and new terms for something that might not stick with the new community plan,” Vecvangs added.
Gonzalez commented that there are residents who have installed septic systems, and simply renewing the expired resolution would leave those folks in the same situation, noting that the BoCC expressed a desire to address that.
Giovannini commented that because the resolution is expired, there is no obligation for the county to inspect properties and that if the county were to wait until the new community plan is drafted, “likely” by the end of 2026, it leaves the situation without any supervision of waste disposal, which she described as “problematic.”
Beaudry suggested the planning commission recommend to the BoCC to renew the resolution and add in language that addresses those with proper septic systems be required to renew their permit every 18 months or every two years.
Gonzalez explained that based on his discussion with the BoCC, its desire is to address the situation through the land use code rather than a resolution, as going through the code would be a “more formal proper way of doing it.”
Vecvangs expressed disagreement with the proposed change from the planning commission that the RV permits could not be renewed after a certain amount of time as his reason for not voting to approve the recommendation.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>