Ouray Real Estate Mining Claim Development

Posted by: Erin Eddy

www.ourayland.com
www.ridgwayland.com

Panel hears strong pros, cons on proposed Alpine Zone regs

New rules for building home on mining claim parcels in the Alpine Zone need more refinement, according to the county's Planning Commission (OCPC).

A draft of proposed changes to the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding residential development on mining claims and other parcels in the southern end of the county, including creation of a new South Alpine Zone, was tabled by the OCPC following a contentious public hearing on June 18.

Under consideration were modifications and additions to existing zoning regulations and boundaries.

But more than 50 people appeared at the public hearing and at least 22, many of whom own mining claims in the county, spoke in opposition to amending the LUC. Several claimed that language of the proposed regulations was overly broad, constitute an infringement on private property rights and is lacking in protection for miners. Several miners said that the entire document should be scrapped, arguing that their property values will decrease.

"Patented claims are private property. Every person has a right to do what he wants with this property. I don't agree with any of it; we have enough government already. The higher you go the worse it gets," said Ron Williams, who has worked with his son, Ron Jr., in the mining industry for several decades.

Several provisions in the draft document generated criticism from patented mining claim owners - who spoke in solidarity. The 12% maximum limit for the grade of the access road (even though the owner may seek a variance) is too restrictive and arbitrary; the limit of one-half acre for a building footprint should be expanded; the prohibition of construction of a new road or improvements to existing roads on the subject parcel (except where there is no existing access to that property) could impact those who wish to install roads for exploratory drilling; and the maximum, or base allowance, for a house being limited to 2,500 square feet of footprint for the total acreage.

The three principal partners of the Tisdel Law Firm in Ouray - Mike Hockersmith, Mark Howe and Andy Mueller - also were present at the hearing.

Hockersmith said the maximum limit of 7,500 square feet for a home where two or more parcels can be included in the calculation is "a huge issue that ought to be addressed."

Howe, who participated in the workshop discussions as an OCPC member, recused himself at the beginning of the June 18 public hearing due to any apparent conflict of interest. The firm represents some mining parcel owners.

Mueller argued that the regulations are) too cost prohibitive for an applicant. "The cost of studies, site plans and geotechnical prevents someone from being able to afford a house in that zone," he said.

Mueller also said that the standards in the document for items such as site plans, lack specificity and that staff in the county's Land Use Department office would be vested with "too much sole discretion" in their decision-making. He also expressed dismay that fencing restrictions were inappropriate for mining claim properties that have a home situated on it: "Now you're telling owners you can't fence your property. That's not okay."

Eight individuals, including Tammy Randall-Parker, Ouray District Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service, spoke in favor of the proposed mine land regulations. But some recommended that the regulations be made more clear and include other considerations. Randall-Parker suggested that the county add language to clarify snow maintenance; the USFS is in the process of developing regulations to require permits.

Howard Greene, a former OCPC member, said the current draft "neither prevents mining or home construction. In fact, (it is) more permissive than in other counties, allowing larger homes and easier variances. They are not a denial of rights and are not a taking."

A six-month moratorium set by the Board of County Commissioners on the construction of residences on mining claims in Ouray County expires July 26.
The BOCC did not take any action during its June 22 meeting to extend that deadline.

Following last week's hearing the OCPC scheduled another workshop on July 9 to discuss whether or not to rewrite portions of the document.
The OCPC wrote the draft proposals pursuant to a request from the BOCC. A total of six workshops were conducted, beginning 18 months ago.
The BOCC asked that the Planning Commission hold another public hearing regarding the proposals on July 21.

- Story by Christopher Pike, correspondent