Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Exemption Plat Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends approval of exemption-plat code tweak for Board consideration
Summary
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve a technical land use code amendment to let any parcel that meets the building-lot definition use the exemption plat process, replacing a more limited reference in Article 9; the motion passed with six ayes and two absences.
The Boulder County Planning Commission on Jan. 15 voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve docket DC-240005, a text amendment to Article 9 of the county land use code that changes how “building lot” references are applied for exemption plats.
Planner Jack Sheehan told the commission staff’s proposal would replace a specific cross-reference to Article 9-100(a)(7) with a broader reference to “any legal building lot” (Article 9-100). Sheehan said staff concluded the more-narrow reference first appeared in 2018 and there was no clear reason to limit the exemption-plat process to that subsection; staff recommended the broader reference “to expand access to the exemption plat process by removing an unnecessary limitation.”
Sheehan summarized that the amendment affects two code provisions that reference the building-lot definition and that the change is technical in nature; staff determined the proposal meets the criteria for processing under Section 16-100(b) and recommended the Planning Commission forward the docket to the Board for action.
No members of the public signed up to speak. Commissioners discussed the change and generally agreed a consistent reference to the building-lot definition would simplify administration and reduce confusion. Commissioner Mark Bloomfield moved to recommend approval to the Board; Commissioner Gavin McMillan seconded. The commission took a roll-call vote: Mark Bloomfield, George Gerstel, Gavin McMillan, Rachel Lee, Bobby Umstead and Chair Chris Whitney all voted “aye.” Commissioners Sam Libby and Anne Goldfarb were recorded absent for the vote. The motion passed with six ayes and no votes against.
Sheehan and staff noted the proposed amendment does not change the substantive criteria for building-lot status; the full set of building-lot criteria within Article 9 would still apply. Staff also confirmed the docket web page and draft materials would be posted to the county’s land use code update site for the Board’s review.
Less-critical details: Sheehan said the specific subsection in question (originally added in 2018 under docket DC-180001) had been intended to codify practices for cases in which the county previously issued permits based on parcel information; the proposed change would broaden eligibility so any parcel that meets the Article 9-100 definition of “building lot” may use the exemption-plat process.
