[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6611204,"mediaKeyId","2898884-ed21b106a0ef36573bf9ca827335945f","parentId",2898884,"title","Commissioners approve two after-the-fact setback variances and adopt variance code amendment","audioSeconds",2072,"startMs",748000,"endMs",2820000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898884-ed21b106a0ef36573bf9ca827335945f&start=748&end=2820","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898884-ed21b106a0ef36573bf9ca827335945f/thumbnail_748000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6611204/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Commissioners-approve-two-after-the-fact-setback-variances-and-adopt-variance-code-amendment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611204-17a49788dff20a5492b8a955685d6525/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009880&Signature=ETvVD57~r96WlvH8RPG1~9fCPEu58Cxy-eJPcht7cY10UD2-6rB81l7OOBD91RF9nDIufRWHBnXSBG6V-dGUYgY4weV65CdjKfF9gyJjiP0PLnydcyfyy7XtEBoO~WUgtA6FZnIJAV8pS-x78KRjDoyLwe4NsgGdKGKl8946XvsgRJPoyaRomIFK~q9H36iYXjqQQUshUVAFW9SpYgA5k-DL78bbrSSer0J7z4iGOLwPuiG1OCz4sqcS7aUe92kAH7y00OrtX-6AWYCz~mcEY9xcY3gdQ-4pj96EdcyQ6qTvgqdcfdn6dis6v-Z3SnEacubMorTbXZF4aW2YXxHnqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montezuma County","date","2025-04-08T17:22:53.157Z","article","Montezuma County commissioners on April 8 signed a resolution that formally adds a variance application section to the county Land Use Code and resolved two after-the-fact setback variance applications brought before the board.

Resolution and background: The board moved to adopt a resolution formalizing an amendment to the Montezuma County Land Use Code that adds a variance section and updates the associated fee schedule (resolution number cited in the hearing as 5-2025). County attorney Steven Tarnowski said the amendment adds procedures specific to how the county will process variance applications and does not change other parts of the existing code. The resolution had been approved at a prior meeting and the board signed the signature page at this meeting.

After-the-fact variances: The board heard resumed public hearings for two after-the-fact setback variances that had been continued for language work in the code. The first application concerned a new accessory structure built on property at 8400 Road 39, Mancos (applicant represented by contractor Nick Manning; owner listed as Laura Webster). Commissioners debated whether the structure should be required to be moved to meet the setback or whether a variance should be granted with a monetary consequence for failing to obtain prior approval. Commissioner Jim Lindsay and others noted the property owner did not seek a pre-approval variance and emphasized the Land Use Code’s tight standards for granting variances, which require showing exceptional or peculiar practical difficulties.

The board ultimately approved an after-the-fact setback variance for the Webster property with a monetary consequence of $6,000 tied to the after-the-fact approval; the motion passed with a unanimous vote. Planning staff and commissioners discussed valuation methods for the penalty, using construction valuation tables and an assessment of percent complete to calculate a 10% consequence of the out-of-compliance portion.

The second after-the-fact application involved a carport installed at 10756 Road 26 in Cortez (applicant: Miss Vincent). Planning staff said the carport sits at roughly 24–25 feet from Mildred Road (County Road 26), where a 30-foot setback is required. The applicant explained the location was chosen to avoid an existing sewer line and other site constraints; the carport is roughly 19 by 19 feet, built on eight piers. Using the same valuation approach described for the earlier case, county staff calculated a consequence amount of $953.28. The board approved that after-the-fact variance with the $953.28 consequence; the vote was unanimous.

Legal context and enforcement options: County counsel read the statute governing Boards of Adjustment and variance authority, explaining that variances are available only in the presence of exceptional topographic or other extraordinary circumstances that would create undue hardship under strict code application. Tarnowski also reminded commissioners of the county’s authority to prosecute land-use code violations in county court under state statute when warranted.

What was emphasized in debate: Several commissioners expressed frustration with repeated after-the-fact variance requests and warned that routinely granting such variances undermines the Land Use Code. Commissioners discussed alternatives including denial (which would require the owner to move structures into compliance) and civil prosecution through county court or conditional consequences agreed by the landowner. One commissioner withdrew an initial motion to deny after weighing the punitive cost of forcing a structure move and instead supported a monetary consequence with the after-the-fact approval.

Practical details recorded at the hearing: For the Webster property, the board cited an approximate 9–10 foot reduction from the required setback (structure positioned roughly 20–30 feet from the property line depending on measurement points as described on the record). For the Vincent carport, staff recorded the carport at 24–25 feet from Mildred Road with the southern property line at 34 feet; the carport’s 19-by-19-foot footprint and eight-pier foundation were described by the applicant.

Next steps: The board directed staff to notify applicants of the board’s decisions and to document the consequence payments and recording requirements. County counsel reiterated the county’s option to pursue enforcement in county court if future violations occur.

Votes at a glance
- Motion: Adopt resolution to codify variance section in Montezuma County Land Use Code (resolution #5-2025). Outcome: signed by board (moved and seconded at prior meeting; formal signature completed on April 8).
- Motion: Approve after-the-fact setback variance for property at 8400 Road 39, Mancos (owner: Laura Webster) with monetary consequence of $6,000. Outcome: approved (unanimous).
- Motion: Approve after-the-fact setback variance for property at 10756 Road 26, Cortez (applicant: Miss Vincent) with monetary consequence of $953.28. Outcome: approved (unanimous).

All formal decisions were recorded on the public record; applicants were informed to coordinate with planning staff regarding documentation of the consequences.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Montezuma County BOCC April 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board signed a resolution codifying a new variance processing section in the county land-use code and approved two after-the-fact setback variances with monetary consequences: $6,000 for a new structure at 8400 Road 39, Mancos, and $953.28 for a carport at 10756 Road 26, Cortez.","taxTitle","Montezuma County, Colorado","taxId",27581,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6611208,"Montezuma County adopts six-month moratorium on new utility-scale solar applications",4152,2932000,7084000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898884-ed21b106a0ef36573bf9ca827335945f&start=2932&end=7084","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898884-ed21b106a0ef36573bf9ca827335945f/thumbnail_2932000.jpg","/articles/6611208/Montezuma-County/Colorado/Montezuma-County-adopts-six-month-moratorium-on-new-utility-scale-solar-applications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611208-fbc546cb18e5f9d91497698d18bff8cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009880&Signature=IYXtlshgS1jlT3c-SayfARO6NboNXiVB4Zzv~FkN2KJCfnC6kZA-sFk5J2~QPhDA-CvlEUtW~3bS1wHL28JqAWN7rNu~AwhvZkjd5wIzcxOwXJMXEG8pvp79u-WDGqtzn3cwWyM~w15w8BGtuXtEbAFsgS4-azm2v7iOqo3wB-rxP65vLgmO-aDsp-Up-WQu-j5~VmoBHGFF-KfF4EP9DOUBoyjh3e3tv6tyZkx90xvcDv7Kg7BeQ10KtFNgNkqtnkOCKgIGeAC5SvcoC09hNgYLWuR-ggDDcMe0hQy7tBwn4kE6WB10ZHxFDwSi-rZMgIQcOozpEQIBmZsbS2-4Zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Montezuma County commissioners on April 8 voted unanimously to adopt a six-month moratorium on accepting new applications for utility-scale solar projects while the county develops specific land-use criteria for such developments.

The board’s county attorney, Steven Tarnowski, told the meeting the moratorium is intended as temporary legislative action to allow staff and commissioners to craft standards that address visual impacts, decommissioning, financial assurances and road use during construction. \"This discussion today is really about the application of the Land Use Code, potential changes to the Land Use Code, [and] the pause that's being considered in accepting new applications,\" Tarnowski said during the hearing.

The moratorium, as clarified on the record, will pause acceptance of new applications but not halt processing of the single large-scale application already filed with county planning staff. Commissioner Jim Lindsay moved to adopt the six-month moratorium; the motion was seconded and the board voted \"Aye\" three times to approve the measure.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want to avoid rushed decisions after developers submit extensive proposals and to ensure county rules address decommissioning bonds, road impacts and protection of farmland and wildlife. Chair Gerald Candelaria said the pause will let the county “get our language in the land use code to where we can make sure that this county is taken care of into the future.”

Public comment at the hearing was extensive and mixed. Several residents urged a pause to permit time for study and safeguards. \"There are so many reasons to take the extra time to address all utility scale solar as a land use,\" said Eleanor McFarland of Cortez, reading a letter supporting a six-month moratorium that asked for uniform panel-height rules, vegetation management and financial assurance for decommissioning. James Cowan, a parent of school-aged children, supported review of the code but asked that the board not retroactively block an application in process: \"I support this review of the land use code, but not for applications that are in process if it would really mean that those projects couldn't be supported,\" he said.

Representatives of the applicant that currently has an active application also addressed the commissioners. David Kimmitt, representing UVI, said his company has been working with the county for several years and urged the board not to change the rules in a way that would invalidate lengthy work already submitted. \"The current regime as it stands is a good one,\" he said, while acknowledging moratoria are allowable under state law.

Several people warned of potential harms from large projects: impacts to farmland and wildlife, visual effects near recreation areas, and road wear during construction. Others urged the board to move quickly so the county does not miss potential tax revenue. The Khosah Institute and other presenters offered to help the county draft regulations and urged a strict deadline to lift the moratorium — recommending six months, citing Mesa County’s recent four-month process as an example.

What the moratorium does and does not do: The board voted to prohibit acceptance of new utility-scale solar applications for six months while staff prepares proposed ordinance language. The board clarified the moratorium will not halt review of the single already-filed application; commissioners directed the county attorney to draft a resolution for the board to adopt at its next regular meeting that implements the moratorium as discussed.

Votes at a glance
- Motion: Adopt six-month moratorium on acceptance of new utility-scale solar applications (not to pause an existing pending application). Mover: Commissioner Jim Lindsay. Second: Commissioner Koppenhaver. Vote: 3-0 in favor. Outcome: approved.

Context and next steps: Commissioners asked staff and counsel to draft text for a moratorium resolution and return it at the next regular meeting. Multiple public commenters left written materials with the clerk and recorder for the record. Commissioners and staff said they expect to use the six-month window to review sample ordinances from other counties, consider decommissioning and bonding requirements, and determine how to address agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and road impacts.","The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 to pause acceptance of new utility-scale solar applications for six months while staff and commissioners draft detailed land-use standards; the county will not pause processing of an existing pending application.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners approve two after-the-fact setback variances and adopt variance code amendment

Montezuma County adopts six-month moratorium on new utility-scale solar applications