Commission will consider land use ordinance

by David Boyle
News Director
San Juan County residents, members of the planning commission and county staff met for over five hours on January 9 to discuss a proposed update to the county land use ordinance. 
After discussion and input from the public at the meeting, members of the planning commission ultimately voted to approve the 2025 Land Use Development and Management Ordinance incorporating many changes discussed at the meeting.
Planning commissioner Shea Walker voiced concern about how the ordinance may negatively impact Spanish Valley before it was approved by the commission. 
The action is not final as the San Juan County Commission will consider its approval in an upcoming meeting.
The meeting followed a tumultuous week, with an online petition calling for the resignation of County Planning Administrator Kristen Bushnell. The petition expressed concern about comments made about individual property owners at the December meeting of the planning commission. 
In response to the outcry, the commission removed a portion of the plan related to animal density from the proposed update.
In a statement shared online on January 8, the county thanked citizens for their input on the plan but called the petition asking for the termination of a county employee ‘highly inappropriate and inconsistent with the values of San Juan County.’
The statement further added, “We acknowledge that references and names used in a public meeting were used as examples and discussion points. We will work harder to try and avoid this in the future.”
“Negative statements about specific employees can escalate to a form of harassment and bullying which can be viewed as harmful actions towards a public employee. We kindly ask for your assistance in stopping the petition and in spreading it through social media or other communication channels.” 
Hundreds of comments online voiced opposition to the statement by the county with many drawing complaints on a request to stop a petition.
The petition was ultimately removed but another petition is circulating online and asking that the ordinance be rejected by the commission and sent back to the planning commission. It had more than 400 signatures at the print deadline.
Speaking before the public hearing, Planning Commission Chair Trent Shafer said they have been working on the zoning update for years, and offered his appreciation for the volunteers and staff who worked on the update.
“Do we make mistakes? All the time and I do want to apologize for things that we said that we shouldn’t have,” said Schafer. “We are human, like I said, we make mistakes in writing and we make mistakes in our decisions.”
After hearing public comments in the meeting, Bushnell said she felt personally attacked over the 24 hours leading up to the meeting.
“I’ve had three people call me today and they’re on my list of things to discuss. When I see all of you in here, I’m just really sad. Like, call me up. I’ve got a lot of people who have called me up and guess what? They got what they wanted. Because it works for us, it works for them. I’m just really disappointed that this turned into a mad mob on Facebook and a petition, instead of just giving me a call.”
The ordinance has been in development for more than a year and is meant to update the county zoning regulations, which have not had an overhaul since 2011. Before that, the first edition of county zoning ordinances were passed in the 1970’s.
County zoning ordinances apply to unincorporated portions of San Juan County. 
Different zones within the ordinance have different restrictions than other areas.
For example, a residential zoned area in a neighborhood in Spanish Valley would have different allowable uses from agriculturally-zoned areas in eastern San Juan County.
In addition, separate zoning regulations are maintained and enforced by the municipalities of Monticello, Blanding and Bluff.
In developing the updated zoning plan, the commission considered an animal density provision. The provision would have limited animal density in unincorporated San Juan County. Commissioners informally planned to remove the animal density provision leading up to the January meeting, due in part to significant opposition and public feedback. The provision was formally removed at the meeting.
Still, issues were raised regarding other portions of the ordinance. 
While different aspects of the ordinance were discussed, a common theme throughout public comments were concerns that the ordinance would infringe on individual property rights. Members of the public expressed concern that the regulations could limit their ability to use their land as they desire.
County resident Lane Palmer shared his concern that new zoning ordinances could be restrictive for entrepreneurship.
“I’m constantly coming up with new ideas on stuff that I want to do on my property to have side schemes and do I have to come to you and approve every little thing all the time?” asked Palmer.
“I feel like that’s just very restrictive and I feel like that’s a backwards way of thinking. It should be like, hey, you go and do what you want. If there’s a problem, we’ll address it.”
County resident Kim Palmer shared disappointment about how the discussion around animal density was handled previously.
“It became a platform for personal opinions, preferences, and even attacks... behavior that is just unacceptable to public servants. When names of individuals were brought into the conversation it crossed the line of professionalism, and ethics.
“And instead of stopping this inappropriate behavior, it was allowed to continue, further violating the trust and dignity of those involved.”
In a written address, Gail Johnson stated, “This heavy-handed proposed ordinance shows the lack of respect this planning commission has for the landowner and little regard for private property rights. This planning commission is promoting big, expansive, overreaching government.”
Dozens spoke at the meeting offering concerns about the proposed plan, with even more in attendance.
County staff, meanwhile, maintained that the new ordinance was less restrictive than the current one, which lists only 23 uses, with anything not on the list being deemed illegal.
The proposed new use table lists 160 uses, with plans to actually enforce the ordinances.
County Attorney Mitch Maughan explained that the 2011 ordinance is out of date and is conflicting at times. “As a result of that, we get killed. We’re in a half a dozen lawsuits,” said Maughan.
Maughan added while some county landowner’s concerns may be related to the zoning uses, other may be related to which zone their property is in. 
“The zone you’re in determines what uses you can have. Now, that can always be changed. You can come in and ask for a zoning change. That’s an option for you.”
At the meeting, the commission included zone changes for some properties that had requested the change ahead of the code update.
Planning Administrator Kristen Bushnell explained that moving forward zones will be re-evaluated every year in October and November, with final annual adoption in December.
Specific concerns raised by the public during the hearing include the impacts of the zoning ordinances on existing businesses as well as home-based businesses.
In response, Bushnell later shared that all legal non-conforming uses would be grandfathered in, meaning existing legal businesses would be able to continue to operate.
“If you come in as non-conforming, you can show that you tried to be legal or you’ve got some vestige, right? You’ve been paying taxes on it if you’re doing short-term rental.
“That non-conforming follows the property. So if you sell it, you can sell it as non-conforming. If you hand it down to your family, you can hand it down as non-conforming. But you have to keep doing that use. So if you’re using it for an overnight rental ranch retreat, if you stop doing that for more than a year, you lose your vestiture.”
Bushnell also explained that cottage-industry or home-based businesses are protected by the state.
Other issues raised included proposed regulations on RV’s. A proposal to limit the number of RV’s allowed on a property with residents arguing the need to use RV’s as possible housing solutions for families because of the cost of traditional housing.
The commission ultimately chose to allow one RV on half acre lots and up to two RV’s on lots sized one acre and above as residences.
Bushnell explained they know RV’s have been a hot topic, adding that state law has made it so living in RV’s full time is not allowed in city limits, which means the county is anticipating an increase in RV’s residences in unincorporated parts of the county.
“We do not want to punish people who that’s the best that they can do. If that’s what they are then let’s figure out a way to make it work.
“But we also want people to be in a sanitary safe place. We do not want hobos and shanty towns popping up. So we really have gone out on a huge limb to allow for RVs as a county.”
Bushnell added there has to be sanitation standards met, meaning a hookup to a septic system. Knowing many people can’t afford a septic system they added they’re looking at other options.
“We’re working with economic development to come up with some resources. Who does septic pro bono? You know, we got the heat program here in San County. Like, there’s these programs to help people out so that they’re not living in squalor.”
Members of the planning commission also clarified some language, including permitted uses in each zone and conditional uses. While permitted uses are allowed in each zone, conditional uses require additional review to ensure health, safety and welfare standards.
The commission also stated that the county would be hiring a code enforcement officer to enforce new ordinances, with communications coming in the form of multiple letters before fees are assessed.
Bushnell explained the officer will not be a “heavy hand. It’s to be a liaison to how to get you into compliance.” Bushnell added communication will be key.
“As long as you’re talking to that person and it’s going well and hey, I’m trying and how can we do this or that, it’s going to go well.”
Other changes approved at the meeting included adding animal grazing as a list of uses allowed in the industrial zone as a use while property owners wait for expansion of mining operations. As well as allowing food trucks in the agricultural zone.
Members of the commission also agreed to make truck stops a conditional use in highway commercial zones.