Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Ørsted MET tower conditional use and Martin replat
Summary
Following public hearings, the Moffat County commissioners approved Orsted's conditional-use application for a MET tower to collect wind data and approved a replat splitting two parcels owned by Elwood Martin; planning staff noted a potential well-permitting concern on the replat that is outside county jurisdiction.
The Moffat County Board of County Commissioners approved two land-use items during its Aug. 12 meeting: a conditional-use permit for a meteorological (MET) tower proposed by Ørsted and a replat application from Elwood Martin.
Candace Miller, planning and zoning coordinator, presented the Ørsted request for conditional use C-25-06. She said the MET tower would be placed on a parcel roughly 37 miles northwest of Craig and would remain for "anywhere from 6 months to a couple of years" to collect wind data to assess viability for future wind projects. Miller told commissioners the planning board met the previous week and recommended approval after receiving no public opposition. An Ørsted representative on the record said the company may apply for additional MET-tower locations after about six months if the initial data warrant further sites. The commissioners approved the conditional-use application by motion and voice vote.
The board also held a public hearing and approved Martin replat application S-25-05 (the file number appears on different documents in the packet but the motion referenced S-25-05). Miller said the replat divides two L-shaped parcels in Sand Springs so a residence and a shop become separate parcels; both parcels meet the five-acre minimum for agricultural zoning. Planning staff noted a potential issue with well permitting and placement affecting the lower lot; Miller said that permitting is handled by the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) and that the applicant had been advised to consult DWR. The replat received a planning-board recommendation for approval and was approved by the commissioners by motion and voice vote.
No public testimony in opposition was recorded in either hearing. Commissioners and staff discussed minor clarifications in the record (ownership and application numbering) before voting.
