Landowners No Longer Have Veto Power on PUD Plat Amendments

RIDGWAY – After a lengthy, detail-oriented discussion Monday afternoon, the Ouray County Commissioners unanimously approved an amendment to Section 6.12 of the county’s Land Use Code that removes a two-thirds veto authority from Planned Unit Development or subdivision landowners when a development is faced with specific amendments or alterations to their PUD plat.

Monday’s hearing was a continuation from a Nov. 2 hearing where over 15 county residents voiced their opposition to the LUC amendment, which was brought forth by Ouray County. It was County Attorney Mary Deganhart’s legal opinion that the original draft of Section 6.12, which required commissioner approval and a two-thirds approval of affected landowners in a PUD that faced a plat amendment, was an illegal delegation of power and that a legislative body like the county commissioners may only delegate its power if it provides sufficient standards for that power.

While that two-thirds veto power was removed from the LUC on Monday, the commissioners said that the concerns of affected landowners in a PUD plat amendment would still be heard and that they are still a part of the approval process. The approved draft of 6.12 states that the commissioners cannot approve a PUD amendment unless the results and comments of affected landowners have been duly considered and that the proposed modification is consistent with the entire PUD. The draft also asks that affected homeowners and HOAs to submit a list of concerns on a particular PUD amendment to the commissioners upon such an approval process.

Commissioner Keith Meinert said the concerns of affected landowners will not go unheard. “It forces whatever board is up here, those commissioners to take into consideration all findings,” he said at Monday’s hearing in Ridgway.

“I feel like we are doing everything we can to include trigger mechanisms for a similar type of input from the affected homeowners,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “Understanding the history in the area, I feel like we are trying to draft a balance.”

There were many concerned citizens who opposed the LUC amendment at the Nov. 2 hearing who felt it would take away the rights of homeowners to decide what can and can’t happen in their PUD. Others simply said they didn’t understand what cases and information on which Deganhart was basing her opinion. Since that hearing, Deganhart had made those cases available for public consideration.

Judging from the public comments at Monday’s hearing, many concerns and opposition to the amendment were satisfied by the release of Deganhart’s basis for her opinion.

In a letter submitted to the commissioners, Dickson Pratt, a homeowner on Log Hill Mesa, stated that he believed the newly drafted section of the LUC adequately protected homeowners in a PUD plat amendment.

“I am persuaded that the rights of neighboring property owners would be adequately protected in the event of a proposed PUD amendment,” Pratt stated in his letter. “In my judgment, should a future BOCC ever go ‘rogue’ and approve a PUD amendment with deleterious impacts on neighbors, in clear violation of the language of 6.12, it would lead to a slam-dunk lawsuit.”

Several members of the public requested that the amended section 6.12 state that a PUD or subdivision plat amendment must be unanimously approved by all three commissioners. But discussion arose about the possibility of a commissioner dying or having to recuse himself/herself for a conflict of interest and whether or not that would stall the process. Ultimately, the commissioners decided to word the language in the amended draft to state that a PUD amendment must be approved by all eligible commissioners, which satisfies the two prior questions.

Meinert dispelled the notion that two commissioners would be able to sneak a PUD amendment approval by a third commissioner in any future approval process.

“I don’t see that as being a valid concern, that two commissioners can sneak something past a third commissioner,” Meinert said. “Any of these amendments takes a process. It has to go through the Planning Commission. There are hearings with the BOCC with notification 14 days in advance.”

It took the commissioners close to two-and-a-half hours to hash out the language changes to the LUC. Just before the unanimous approval Commissioner Lynn Padgett said the LUC change provides a county process that has meaning.

“I think that this guarantees that the county isn’t going to come in and have a power grab and do something to undermine a county approved development,” Padgett said. “I think this particular proposal does provide a county process that does have a meaning.”

After the unanimous vote, Meinert thanked the members of the public for their input in drafting the LUC changes.

“This is a much improved draft than what we were working on for many, many months,” Meinert said, “and it’s because of the conscientious input from the folks who came to all the meetings.”