Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Regulatory Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners debate zoning alternative for power generation rules
Summary
Commissioners revisited prior consideration of two zoning alternatives for power generation siting, discussed using acres versus megawatts as a measurement and whether to request the Board of County Commissioners to return a text amendment for further revision.
During general business on Sept. 25, members of the Montrose County Planning Commission discussed text amendments related to power generation siting rules, including what the transcript refers to as "alternative 2." Several commissioners said alternative 2 contained elements worth reconsidering—most notably a proposal to use acreage as a measurement rather than an engineering‑derived megawatt calculation, and separate security requirements.
One commissioner said using acres in the ordinance makes the standard more comprehensible: "...it makes sense to me to use a measurement in acres," the commissioner said, adding that acreage is a familiar land measure and remains meaningful as technology changes. Planning staff described the procedural history: the planning commission held a public hearing and had a 30‑day window to forward its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; the BOCC may accept, continue or send the amendment back for further work.
Commissioners discussed options for pursuing minor tweaks if they are concerned with aspects of alternative 2. Staff advised that the BOCC has the prerogative to send a text amendment back to the planning commission for more work and that the commission can propose changes in future text amendments. The commission acknowledged some valid points within alternative 2 but noted the time constraints and the need for a more thorough rewrite if significant changes are pursued.
The BOCC meeting on the matter was noted as occurring the following Wednesday; staff said the BOCC could choose to continue the issue, request revisions, or approve the planning commission's recommendation.
The session closed with a brief question about an easement issue tied to a separate Old Valley Major item; staff clarified that dedicating right-of-way does not extinguish previously recorded easements and that easements remain in effect unless vacated in a later legal action.
No formal motions on the text amendment were made at this meeting; next steps depend on action by the Board of County Commissioners.
