Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff recommend opting out of state EV charger model code; commissioners to decide by Dec. 31

5487534 · July 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff recommended Montezuma County opt out rather than add model-ordinance language for electric-vehicle chargers under House Bill 24-1173, and county counsel said the board must take one of three actions by Dec. 31: adopt the model code, adopt the statute's standards, or formally decide not to amend the county land-use code now.

County planning staff recommended that the board opt out of adopting additional land-use code language implementing House Bill 24-1173, which concerns standards and permitting for electric-vehicle (EV) chargers. Staff said the county’s existing special-use and permit processes can accommodate charger projects and that the likelihood of a large-scale EV-charger development appearing in county unincorporated land is low.

Planning staff noted the bill requires counties with more than 20,000 residents to take a compliance action by Dec. 31; county counsel clarified that the board’s choices are to adopt the model standards, adopt the standards in the legislation, or adopt a resolution/ordinance declining to change the current land-use code before Dec. 31. The resolution route does not prevent future amendments.

Commissioners discussed practicality, power-availability constraints, and whether the model code represented an example of “front-range” standards that may not fit local conditions. Planning staff and counsel noted the model code includes distinctions between primary-use charging facilities and secondary-use chargers at existing businesses or multifamily housing, and that the county’s existing code and special-use permit procedures could accommodate either.

Staff recommended the board decide at the next meeting after further discussion; counsel emphasized the board must take one of the three statutorily prescribed actions by Dec. 31, 2025.