Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Land-use code

With Planning Commission adoption, now is time for greater public participation

Wednesday, the Durango Planning Commission unanimously adopted a new Land Use and Development Code. Whether that reflects the true worth of the new code or simple exhaustion remains to be seen. In any case, members of the public now have roughly until March to ensure they, too, are heard.

The city says the process of revising the plan has taken four years, hundreds of thousands of dollars and involved countless meetings attended by hundreds of residents. No doubt all that is true.

But a great deal of those discussions were narrowly focused on specifics lacking citywide interest. What is needed now is not more talk about the minutia of development, but a focus on the fundamental questions of planning and some answers to some simple questions: Chief among being, whose interests come first?

A consultant for the code revision, Bret Keast, obliquely raised just that question, saying, “We wanted to establish a fair process that is clear, consistent, predictable and will allow developers to get timely decisions.”

Fair, clear, consistent and predictable certainly sound good – especially if one ignores the fact they can be mutually exclusive – but timely? From a developer’s perspective, that typically means a quick decision. Is that necessarily fair or in the best interests of neighbors or other city residents? Why would making speed the top – or even a significant – consideration contribute to overall fairness or clarity? That might benefit some, but what does it do for neighborhoods or the larger community?

That is all the more a concern if one remembers that the question of Accessory Dwelling Units was essentially addressed in the new code via Band-Aid, while vacation rentals are still up in the air.

What is more, under the new plan, many more land-use questions could be decided without resort to the Planning Commission or the City Council. The idea is that with more clearly defined standards, the city staff could grant approval to more projects, saving Planning Commission and City Council time for bigger issues.

That would seem to presume approval – although public involvement is often driven by a desire to stop or modify a project. Under those circumstances, would the staff even have the authority to deny or order changes in a project?

Commissioner Joe Lewandowski expressed concern over that, asking, “Will the public still have the opportunity to express their opinions and their grievances to effect change?

“But,” he said, “from reading the new code and talking to staff, I’m very confidant that the public will be well involved with all city planning decisions.”

The problem, of course, is there is a big difference between involvement and actually influencing an outcome. Too many public officials – especially of the unelected variety – are adept at appearing to listen before doing what they had in mind all along.

That gets to the heart of why public involvement now is so critical. There has been talk of changes, such as ADUs, vacation rentals and how various mixed-use areas will be recognized as distinct entities. City officials are excited about new software allowing users to calculate considerations, such as how many parking spaces or what landscaping their project will require.

Largely missing from this discussion, however, has been the role of zoning and enforcement. Will there be an app for that, too, one that might predict the likelihood of the zoning of a particular neighborhood actually holding up in the face of developers’ (and sometimes municipal) pressure? Why should existing residents have any less claim on clarity and certainty than developers?

City residents have until March to raise such questions.



Reader Comments