Ouray Real Estate Land Use Issues

Split continues on mine claims regs

Written by: Patrick Davarn 07.AUG.09

Posted by: Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com

Unscheduled discussion on the current hot-button topic of residential development on mining claims dominated an otherwise light agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.

Yet more discussion, albeit this time scheduled, takes place during a work session on Aug. 10 between the BOCC and the Ouray County Planning Commission (OCPC).

Last Monday, OCPC member Ken Lipton came before the BOCC during its informal Call to the Public to read a statement of timelines that included summaries of directives by the BOCC and meetings and work sessions since the process began in May 2008.

“The question as to whether or not a new section to the code should be written was already decided by the BOCC and earlier agreed to by the PC and this should not be negated by self-interested parties or ideology or fear of angering a portion of the community that holds unrealistic views on property rights or the county’s right to regulate land use,” said Lipton from a portion of his document.

According to a news report in the July 31 Plaindealer, nearly 200 citizens packed the county courthouse two days earlier to register their views on the issue of restrictions and regulations for residential development on mining claims. Opinions were as diverse as the backgrounds of those in attendance; some owned property in the area currently defined as the South Alpine Zone, some did not.

Commissioner Keith Meinert said at Monday’s meeting that a news report in last week’s Plaindealer needed clarification. County Attorney Mary Deganhart did not write or propose regulations for that zone. “We need to be careful in the way this is portrayed to the public,” said Meinert. “I want to dispel completely (any belief) that such work is driven by any individual on the staff. The county attorney is working at the instruction of the board.”

Meinert said he agreed with Lipton that there needs to be a better understanding between the BOCC and the Planning Commission.

BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said the county’s six-month moratorium on mining claims development was intended to allow time for discussion and consideration of specific regulations; but the timetable was not realistic. “We have a large demographic interested in the issue,” said Albritton. “If there are ways to work with them, we need to do that and get a consensus, understanding that we are not going to please everyone.”

Ridgway area resident Craig Fetterolf, who served on the county’s Study Group that earlier this year completed its report on two separate analysis on the affects of growth, asked why mining claims are not taxed the same as other buildable residential properties. “It’s unfair to the rest of us who are paying our taxes,” he said.

Meinert said mining claims are being assessed at the proper rate of 29%; there is no special treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Commissioner Lynn Padgett explained that the difference is the land’s valuation. Padgett said the state requires the county to assess all property at market value, but there is simply not enough data on local sales.

Padgett added that while a higher assessment of market value may add to property tax revenues, it may also harm opportunities for the public, such as the Red Mountain Project or the Trust for Public Land, to obtain mining claims. A higher valuation will mean a higher price.