HomeMy WebLinkAbout780515.tiff 11 MI fl \IdI (11 (:( 1IINI Y ( t1�I�III,� It1P11 It:.
PHONE: (303) 35G-4000 EXT. 200
P.O. BOX 758
GREEI-EY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
March 6 , 1978 -
Lee Woolsey , Director
Colorado Land Use Commission
137,3 Sherman Street
Room 520
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE : Proposed Commission Policy Regarding Local Regulation of
Matters of State Interest
Dear Mr. Woolsey :
After having reviewed the above referenced proposal , Weld County
would like to set forth that it stands firmly opposed to the
policies set forth therein . Weld County considers the proposal
as an attempt to establish standing or authority for the Land Use
Commission and its staff which is in no way authorized by existing
Colorado statutes .
Of particular concern are the sections entitled "Standards for
Local Controls" and "General Standards for Substitute Regulations" .
Cases in point include the following: -
1 . In Section 2, Standards for Local Controls , it is stated
that "Whenever a matter is found to be of ' state interest '
designation by local government shall be required in the
following cases" . This statement not only assumes that
local governments must designate certain matters of state
interest , but also assumes that the Commission wi11 have
the final authority in determining what matters a local
government must designate . We find no basis for this
authority , in either case, in the existing statutes .
Rather, the statutes set forth that the Commission "may
submit a formal request to a local government to take
action with regard to a specific matter which said Comm-
ission considers to be of state interest within the local
government ' s jurisdiction" . The statute further indicates
"If the local government ' s order fails to designate such
matter the Colorado Land Use Commission may seek
judicial review of such order or guidelines by a trial
780515
vigaye ✓ 7 re.. 2/49g
Lee Woolsey
Page 2
March 0 , 1978
de novo in the district court for the judicial district in
which the local government is located" . The statute in
fact gives no final authority to the Land Use Commission in
matters concerning designation. We feel the proposed policy
is a blatant attempt by the Commission to assume authority
not granted by legislation.
2 . Section I of the proposal (General Standards for Substitute
Regulations sets forth the following :
"2. The regulations must require notice to be given
to the Land Use Commission of significant develop-
ment proposals at least 30 days prior to any
hearing on such application.
3. The regulations must provide for notice to the
Land Use Commission of amendments to regulations
prior to adoption.
4. The regulations must grant standing to the Land
Use Commission enabling the agency to seek a
court order to require compliance with adopted
regulations . "
The statute in essence grants such standing to the Commission
only if the local government chooses to designate a given
matter of state interest . For the Land Use Commission to
attempt to gain such standing by the adoption of administrative
policy is an action which clearly violates the existing
statutes. It is clearly an attempt by the Commission to
have local governments grant the Commission authority which
it otherwise would not have under existing law. We feel
that the grant of such authority is a. matter for consideration
in the legislative process ; not a matter to be resolved by
executive or administrative mandate.
3 . Finally , the above referenced Section I also provides that
"The regulations must provide that no variance or exemption
will be granted to the minimum standards set forth herein
for areas and activities of state interest . " This statement
essentially assumes the infallibility of all standards and
regulations adopted, in their application to all development
proposals . It is felt that such an assumption is unrealistic.
Instead of eliminating variance or exemption processes , it
would seem more realistic to establish such procedures in a
manner whereby they cannot be abused. Standards for review
in such processes must be established. Simply eliminating
such processes will not lead to the effective implementation
of standards .
Lee Woolsey
Page 3
March 2, 1978
In general , Weld County can sympathize with the frustration which
must be felt by the Commission in attempting to administer what
is , in many instances , a badly written piece of legislation. How-
ever, it is also felt that such deficiencies cannot be corrected
by the Commission assuming authority which is not granted by statute .
The delegation of such authority is a matter for the legislative
process . Weld County thus stands firmly opposed to the proposed
policies which the Commission has set forth . We hope our concerns
will be fully addressed
prior to any action being taken on the
proposal .
Sincerely,
D_ ce _7, 6 t..7„i,
Ed Dunbar
Chairman
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
ED:sap
•
Hello