The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About760635.tiff - 1y Mil STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1845 Sherman Street Denver,Colorado 80203 (303)892-2778 November 28, 1975 Glenn K. Billings, Chairman Weld County Board of County Commissioners P. 0. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Billings: Thank you for sending the Land Use Commission a copy of your November 18 letter to Betty Miller accepting 1041 funds and commenting on the recent requirements made for the use of those funds. The Land Use Commission is pleased that Weld County has decided to continue utilizing 1041 funds in its efforts to comply with the statute. Your comments on the possible ramifications of the designation hearing requirements of the Land Use Commission Guidelines for Identi- fication and Designation seem to be well-considered, and your inter- pretation of the conditions attached to receipt of the funds (paragraphs 1 and 2 on pages 1 and 2 of your letter) is correct. However, the Land Use Commission does not agree entirely with your statement of the consequences which you believe will follow the designation hearing requirement or a decision by a local government to designate and regulate a matter of state interest under 1041, rather than solely under zoning, subdivision regulations, etc. First, regulations under 1041 can be combined with existing or new county zoning or subdivision regulations and procedures, with certain modifications. Second, while 1041 authorizes a separate and parallel regulatory scheme, it does not mandate a totally separate system. A 1041 system can be integrated into procedures with which the county is familiar in such a manner as to minimize administrative costs and problems. Third, if the county (or a municipality in the county) chooses to integrate a 1041 program into existing regulations and procedures in such a manner as to meet the minimum requirements of 1041, then 1041 money can be used for the purpose of drafting, adopting, and adminis- tering that regulation. 94 vc/bt' 760635 Glenn K. Billings November 28, 1975 Page Two Fourth, while some counties or municipalities may choose to delay decisions to regulate a matter of state interest in order to maximize their use of the state funds before holding a designation hearing, we do not believe that this is the only logical or most likely outcome of the requirement. It is quite possible, indeed probable, that the requirement will function as a basis upon which local governments will bring to fruition and completion the identification, designation, and regulation of certain priority matters of state interest. Without the designation hearing requirement, it is quite likely that many local governments would spend all or most of their time and the state's money solely in the identification or planning process, without ever adopting regulations under 1041 or any other statutory authority. Thus, we feel that the hearing requirement will, in the long run, result in more local governments deciding to regulate matters of state interest sooner than they would otherwise. Fifth, while we realize that the public hearing required by the statute for every 1041 permit seems to place an onerous burden on local government, the burden in fact may not be as great as you have indicated. Depending on the point in the approval process for the use of land at which you would put a 1041 permit, it might be combined with existing public hearings, such as those for a variance or subdivision approval. Similarily, a 1041 permit could be issued for an entire subdivision, with no further hearing requirement for specific structures within the subdivision which require a building permit. Thus, if a substantial portion of the 1306 building permits issued by Weld County between January and October, 1975, were issued for structures within an approved subdivision, then all those hundreds of permits would represent only a few 1041 permit hearings on the subdivision themselves. Finally, we do not agree that the hearing requirement amounts to a "method by which the state dictates methods of local land use control" to any greater extent than 1041 represents such a state involvement in a traditional area of local concern. The requirement of our guidelines is based upon a clear reading of the statutory language in 1041. Any complaint against state intrusion is best directed to the statute, not to our guidelines or Attorney General opinions. Glenn K. Billings November 28, 1975 Page Three The Land Use Commission would be pleased if some of our members or staff could sit down with you, your fellow commissioners, and your planning staff to discuss ways in which 1041 can be integrated into your existing zoning, subdivision, or other land use regulations, or to discuss any other aspect of 1041 and our guidelines with which you are concerned. Again, let me express our appreciation that Weld County is continuing its effort regarding matters of state interest. Sincer y, X \AK Fred A. Sondermann Chairman FAS/mad cc: Governor Richard D. Lamm Mr. Phil Schmuck, Director, Division of Planning Mrs. Betty Miller, Department of Local Government Senator Joe Shoemaker, Joint Budget Committee Mr. Dwight Whitney, 1041 Field Representative Mr. S. C. Arnold, Joint Budget Committee Senator G. H. Brown Mr. Carl S. Showalter Ms. Virginia L. Sears Senator James M. Kadlecek Mr. Walter A. Yonngland Mr. Bill Hilsmeier Mr. John G. Hamlin Hello