My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 09 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 09 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:18:37 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
9/12/2019
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 12t", 2019 <br />Page 2 of 12 <br />All required notice was met. <br />Ritchie presented the proposed ordinance, which will comply with the new state <br />regulations for S.B. 19-181, "Protect Public Welfare Oil and Gas Operations," allowing <br />for greater local control. There are no current drilling activities or actively -producing <br />wells within the city and no active permits have been filed with the state since 1999. The <br />intent of this ordinance is to require a 30-day notice for oil and gas operator registration, <br />which includes the following: <br />• Good faith estimate on number of well sites and wells within 5 years <br />• Map showing locations <br />• Well estimates <br />• Information demonstrating capability to meet requirements <br />• Requirement to update information as necessary <br />• Requirement to reapply after 5 years if no application has been submitted <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution 16, Series 2019. <br />Rice disclosed that his wife is an executive with a large oil and gas company, but he did <br />not consider it a conflict of interest since that company was not doing in business in <br />Boulder County and likely not doing business anywhere in Colorado. <br />Howe asked about the moratorium. <br />Kelly replied that the draft proposed a 6-month moratorium, though staff was also <br />presenting a draft to Council without a moratorium. Updating the regulations would be <br />an expensive and long process and there had been some discussion about the <br />relevance of making those updates, given how much staff time would be needed and <br />the possibility that the ordinance may no longer be up-to-date by the time an application <br />came through. The moratorium would allow for a timely review of regulations. Council <br />had talked through scenarios in which the 6-month timeline would not be long enough or <br />the Council would not be able to secure a super majority if there were any absent <br />council members when an application came through. Therefore, the language meant <br />that a filing would trigger the moratorium. <br />Howe asked if 6 months was an adequate amount of time. <br />Kelly replied that the courts view temporary moratoria as legitimate means to update <br />ordinances. When you push it to a year, it starts looking like a ban on the activity. If the <br />City found that it needed more than 6 months while it was actively working on its <br />regulations, it could choose to extend a moratorium. <br />Moline asked if this would apply to properties that the City had an ownership share in <br />but that were outside the City limits. <br />Kelly replied that it would not. <br />Williams asked what the ramifications would be if there were a ban. <br />G1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.