County commissioners adopt Ranchland Initiative despite objections

Landowners get an expedited planning process for conserving open space

The Gunnison Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the Ranchland Initiative over some very clear and vocal objections from people with varying points of view, but who all agreed that the plan is wrong for the county.

The Ranchland Initiative (RLI), which was on the commissioners’ table for two-and-a-half years, is a program that would allow large-parcel landowners to get an easy trip through the county planning process in exchange for putting 85 percent of their land holdings into a conservation easement. This easement would preclude any new development.
The RLI idea has been researched and championed by County Geographic Information Systems manager Mike Pelletier, who has seen similar programs elsewhere in the state offer enticing alternatives to landowners who would otherwise resort to unregulated 35-acre development allowed by the state.
In some cases, that kind of subdivision is blamed for segmenting wildlife habitat and, of particular concern to the commissioners, viable agricultural lands in the county. Commissioner Jim Starr cited several studies conducted in the valley that show open space is one of the top reasons people continue to visit.
“What we’re trying to do is capture those folks who would just go into the 35-acre process,” Starr said in response to a complaint the RLI would just be another example of government pandering to large-parcel landowners. “Not only does this have the benefit of maintaining a viable agricultural industry here, but you can talk to any number of people who realize the value of the open space we get through viable agricultural use. That open space is critical to the success of our tourism economy and we are quickly losing those open space corridors.”
But business owner and long-time resident Mark Schumacher sees something entirely different in the RLI. The trouble he has with the premise of the plan is ultimately an issue of fairness.
“I think you’re moving way too fast on this and I don’t think you’ve evaluated the consequences of [the RLI],” Schumacher said. “For one thing, I think it’s discriminatory to others, especially other people in the community who have smaller parcels that need to go through the Land Use Resolution [process] for them to develop their property.
“I think you could call this the Ranchland Development Initiative or the Good ‘Ol Boys Club, because it circumvents right around the Land Use Resolution,” he continued, pointing out that he has given money to the Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy and supports open space projects.
He went into the fairness issue in depth, directing the commissioners to areas of the RLI that he said let large-parcel landowners off of a hook that the average developer has to dangle from, usually in front of the Planning Commission for long periods.
A piece of property can remain in any stage of the RLI process for an indeterminate amount of time that allows the landowner to plan for the future while maintaining their way of life. But once the conservation stage of the process is complete, the landowner is obligated to leave that parcel in a conservation easement for the next 20 years.
Pelletier and county attorney David Baumgarten argue that requiring a time commitment of landowners will at least give the public a “mid-term” lease, and a benefit, on a conserved piece of land.
But Shumacher questioned the need for such a program and asked where in the county the plan could be put to use.
He was also frustrated by the idea that the landowner who voluntarily enters the process can pay a $500 fee and have the county’s planning staff do all of the legwork to subdivide the property, which the county sees as an incentive to participate and Schumacher sees as a gift and a potential waste of resources.
“So [the landowner] can go through the development phase of the project and for $500 the county is going to do all the work for him and he can still pull out at any time. Explain how that is fair to the taxpayers who are paying for this,” Schumacher said. “And they’re exempted from having to go through the Land Use Resolution like everyone else has to. That’s where it’s discriminatory.”
Baumgarten didn’t disagree that the RLI was discriminatory and told Schumacher that the decision to move forward on the plan was a political one, made by the commissioners who consider the valley’s ranching roots to be an irreplaceable asset that need protection.
Commissioner Paula Swenson told Schumacher she is “willing to go to bat to try something else to ensure that we have ranching in this community into the future.”
But Schumacher doubted if the ranchers would even use the program, pointing out that only two ranchers were at the public hearing.
That, however, doesn’t mean that the ranching community has been silent throughout the process. They have been at the negotiating table all along with the county. At the last public hearing on the RLI in March (at which there were more than two ranchers) rancher Lee Spann said that he thought the RLI proposal had “more sticks than carrots” and hoped to see more incentives to get landowners to participate.
Planning commissioner Ramon Reed, who attended the most recent public hearing as a private citizen, agreed with Schumacher that there probably isn’t much need for the RLI.
“I think we all would like to do as much as we can to preserve the ranching and open space that is a part of Gunnison County. I don’t think this process is likely to do that for a lot of reasons, one of which is the audience here tonight,” Reed said. “Where are the people who should be supporting this… The only reason I haven’t lost a great deal of sleep over this document is because I think there is likely to be extremely little, if any, use of it.”
Reed was very concerned with the RLI possibly being abused by some board in the future. He was also worried that “in an attempt to keep this flexible, there are a lot of holes in it.”
But after hearing all of the concerns from Schumacher and Reed, and having many of those concerns echoed by local real estate agent Mindy Costanzo, the commissioners felt that too much good could be gained by preserving the open space and maintaining the agricultural viability of the land to let the RLI review continue.
The commissioners passed a resolution enacting the RLI with the promise of revisiting the program after the first two applications had made it to the conservations phase of planning.