OURAY – The Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday unanimously denied a citizen initiated amendment to the county’s Land Use Code put forth by Steve Jordan and his authorized agent, Robert Savath. The proposed amendment would have changed language setting the standards to change the zoning classification of an area.

Section 20.3 of the LUC reads: “Amendments to this Code may be adopted whereby the zoning classification of an area is changed, only if the following exist: A. The area in question abuts an existing district having the zoning classification desired, and…” Jordan and Savath wanted to add the language: “or abuts actual historic development having equal or greater density than that which is proposed.”

“I think the intent of the code was to keep zones and zoning in a cohesive manner,” Savath told the commissioners. “We have no other mechanism within the code to address the unique circumstance of this piece of land.”

While the discussion on Monday was dedicated to the merits of changing the LUC and not about a specific subdivision approval, it was noted that Jordan approached the county’s land use office in June of 2008 about the possibility of subdividing the 21-acre Lot 5 of the Neff Subdivision. County Planner Mark Castrodale informed Jordan at that time that the parcel of land did not qualify for further subdivision due to the Valley Zoning and corresponding 1:35 density.

Jordan appealed the denial to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, which upheld the original denial. Jordan and Savath then went to the Ouray County Planning Commission on Nov. 18, 2008 in an attempt to amend the LUC in the form of a citizen initiated amendment. After reviewing that application members of the planning commission approved a motion to forward the application to the county commissioners with the recommendation of denial.

Savath told the commissioners on Monday that Lot 5 is surrounded on three sides by development and that his client’s proposal would be less dense than any of them. Savath also made note that before the LUC was changed to eliminate the Foothill Zone, a subdivided Lot 5 would “have met all the criteria” of that zone.

“I understand that the commissioners are under tremendous pressure to keep the integrity of the LUC,” Savath said. “You have to understand that no matter how well written the LUC is, there needs to be some kind of mechanism that an individual project can be viewed on its merits.”

While the commissioners generally agreed that the LUC as it is written needs some improvements, they were not swayed by Savath’s argument to amend the LUC.

“There is a concern that I have and a sympathy that I have with an applicant who doesn’t have an avenue to accomplish what he wants to accomplish,” Commissioner Keith Meinert said. “There is a reason for that and it is intentional. I am very reluctant to see us put into the code additional avenues for applicants to appeal for changes of the code. It increases the opportunity for arbitrary and capricious decisions on the board. For that reason and the reasons that the planning commission came up with, I am not inclined to approve this request.”

Commissioner Lynn Padgett agreed with Meinert’s statement and added that she believed amending the language “would have a lot of unintended consequences.”

“I see this as very problematic,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “I foresee a lot of projects that would come to us that would be a challenge to deny.”