My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 08 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 08 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2021 10:37:32 AM
Creation date
8/23/2019 2:43:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
9A3
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
620
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 30, 2019 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />Councilmember Keany asked how long a moratorium can last. City Attorney Kelly stated <br />6-9 months is generally acceptable; longer than that may start to look like a ban and not <br />be considered reasonable by the Courts. As long as the City is actively working on rules <br />during that time extensions are generally considered reasonable. <br />Councilmember Loo asked if staff has a recommendation of the five options. She asked if <br />this work will be done in house or contracted out if we move forward; what are the costs in <br />dollars and in staff time. <br />City Manager Balser stated it is not exactly known, but the assumption is it would be in <br />house and we could base our work on that from other municipalities as a start. <br />Councilmember Loo stated #3 buys some time and gives some protections. Mayor <br />Muckle stated he agreed it would be nice to only institute a moratorium if we need it. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated #3 is not enough protection for the community and this <br />process has not be legally tested. He stated the simplest and most cost effective process <br />is a simple moratorium. We may want to have this in place for any possible applications. <br />City Attorney Kelly stated #3 can only be effective if the Council at that time has the <br />appetite to enact a temporary moratorium on an emergency basis. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he would like to have a strong message by enacting a <br />moratorium. <br />Councilmember Maloney stated he would like a moratorium connected to the rule making <br />at the COGCC. Deputy City Manager Davis stated much of the COGCC's work will relate <br />to the State and not pertain to local governments. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated she thinks most residents want a total ban even though <br />that is not a tool available to us. She stated #3 gives us the option to wait the longest <br />possible time without a moratorium. Making rules now will require a great deal of time and <br />cause unrest in the community with no real benefit. <br />Deb Fahey asked where drilling is allowed now in Louisville. Director Zuccaro stated an <br />applicant can apply for an SRU for any zone district in the City with a 350-foot setback <br />from a structure. This complies with state law from the time when these rules were <br />written. There are large areas of open space where drilling is still feasible and new <br />horizontal drilling options may make our areas useful for drilling. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he feels putting a pre -application process in place just to <br />allow for a moratorium is dishonest. We would be better off being clear what we want by <br />having a moratorium now and putting regulations in place in the time available. <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.