The realtors' message was obvious from the title slide of their Power Point presentation: “A Solution in Search of a Problem.”
“We have visual impact regulations now,” said presenter Donna Whiskeman of Re/Max Cimarron Realty. “We believe they are not only working but working very well.”
Some in the brokerage community have been up in arms since commissioners released a draft proposal on May 18. The idea then, according to BOCC Chair Lynn Padgett, was “to start a discussion” for revising Section 9 of the Land Use Code, which deals with visual impacts.
(Before any code revision could become law, a proposal would first have to be sent to the county planning commission for review and more public input, then go again to the BOCC for additional public hearings before a possible approval vote.)
Some form of visual impact regulation has been on the books since the mid 1980s when the county Master Plan recognized the importance of the area’s extraordinary viewscapes to both residents and the tourism economy. The existing code has been in place since 1997. Commissioners have said they undertook a revision in order to address concerns from various quarters, including issues of fairness and clarity, and as an attempt to streamline the existing review process.
But realtors were upset with what they saw as additional burdens placed on their clients and therefore on their own livelihoods. Specifically, Whiskeman said, realtors have problems with four areas of the proposal: first, the possible expansion of view corridors from a few county roads plus Highways 550 and 62 to include all numbered county roads; second, the suggestion that new buildings on escarpments and ridgelines be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the edge; third, the so-called tier system commissioners proposed to streamline the process; and fourth, regulations for blending and screening new structures in the corridors.
Whiskeman acknowledged previous statements by Padgett that both the 200-foot setback and the Tier 1 review had been scrapped but plowed ahead with the presentation anyway. Padgett had said that following the county’s field trip in July, “consensus was the 200 feet is too much, and is now off the table.” She called Tier 1 a “lightning rod” and, while largely misrepresented by opponents, commissioners had decided that it too should be removed from consideration.
Following Whiskeman’s remarks, Alan Stapleton of Re/Max talked about the possible financial ramifications of new regulations. Appraisers tell us, he said, that a lot with great views is often 10 percent more valuable than a lot with “average” views, and that a lot with “no view” typically sees a further 10 percent knocked from its value. So, Stapleton concluded, if the new regulations (particularly the 200-foot setback) were to turn a “great view” lot into a “no view” lot, the owner could see a 20 percent drop in property value.
Trickle-down would be dire, Stapleton said, with loss of property tax revenues to the county, a loss of population, fewer school-age children. At this point, though, with commissioners admitting the 200-foot setback was too much, Stapleton’s point was mute.
He further admitted that counties with visual impact regulations tended to have higher property values overall. And he used this point to argue against expanding the view corridors. If land prices go up in parts of the county currently outside the purview of visual impact regulations, then, Stapleton said, “the worker bees,” middle-class families, will be less able to buy in the county.
Audience members spoke up then on both sides of the debate. One man who had recently moved to the county said that he chose Ouray County “because it was progressive enough to have visual impact regulations.” He chastised realtors for a postcard campaign they launched following the May 18 draft.
That postcard read, in part: “Did you know? Our Ouray County Commissioners and Planning Committee want to: Diminish the value of your property; Tell you what color your home can be; Dictate what kind of building material and roofing you can use. . .” This kind of misrepresentation was not constructive, the speaker said.
In her defense, Whiskeman claimed that realtors “were scared to death” by some of what they saw in the draft proposal. “We didn’t think the BOCC had taken the time to understand the impacts of what they were proposing. We were scared to death. For us and our clients. We wanted to be sure that the people of the county understood it.”
Ridgway resident Howard Greene summed up for many. “I was quoted as saying the recent meeting of architects and builders with the county on this subject was an example of democracy in action. And that’s what’s happening here tonight. This was the first time in Ouray County history that a document (the May 18 draft) was produced to start a conversation. This is the conversation.”
The next public workshop on the topic is scheduled for Sept. 21, location still to be determined.
Post a Comment