Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />mattet" tit state inte1:e~i. ftihe is ~m4e'r vested in tH~ Colorado Land <br />Use Commission to compel the adoption of floodplain regulations through <br />a procedure comparable to mandamus which was included in the legislative <br />act adopted last year. <br /> <br />One of the major problems is that there are somewhat conflicting laws <br />relating to floodplain designation. In 1966, following the severe floods <br />of 1965, the legislature amended the zoning statutes of both cities and <br />counties to authorize cities and counties to zone for floodplain hazards. <br />Under that law, a number of jurisdictions in Colorado have adopted flood- <br />plain regulations. Last year the Land Use Act was adopted and n~t too <br />much attention was paid to the existing law. Passage of that act was <br />somewhat controversial and various compromises were arrived at. There <br />are some decided conflicts between the zoning authority and the land use:, <br />law enacted last year. What we did with the proposed regulation was to <br />lift pertinent portions from both the laws. We tried to reconcile them <br />as best we could. Some remedial legislation, however, should be enacted <br />which makes cross reference to the tWo different laws and which would <br />reconcile the differences. <br /> <br />At this point, the staff has gone 8S far as it can in revising the regula- <br />tion. We have had only limited experience in this state with floodplain <br />regulations. We have reviewed the existing regulations of the many towns <br />and states throughout the United States. What we have put together here <br />is somewhat of a composite regulation which we think carries out the <br />purpose and intent of the Land Use Act enacted last year. As further <br />experience dictates, we undoubtedly will need to make some changes in <br />this proposed regulation in the future. At this time, this is the best <br />which the staff has been able to come up with and we therefore recommend <br />its adoption. (See Appendix A). <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Any comments from the board? <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: I have a comment. Larry, is it your thought that the <br />revised regulation be recirculated so that those who have had input <br />had a chance to look at it before we adopt it, or is it your thought <br />that we adopt it today? That is question no. 1. Question no. 2 is, <br />wouldn't it be a good idea not only for the board but for the audience <br />to know basically the changes that 'iI7ere made from the December 4 meeting <br />to the revision today? If you could go with those, I think it is quite <br />important. <br /> <br />Mr. SDarks: On your first point, we did submit the same memorandum which <br />the board received to all parties who had submitted comments on the ' <br />regulation and advised them of the meeting today. I suspect that there <br />may be some people here who would like to speak to this matter. It has <br />been circulated to that extent. It has not had the large circulation <br />that we gave the first regulation because we only followed up with the <br />people who had submitted cQmments. <br /> <br />The major change that was made had to do with the definition of the low <br />hazard areas. This has been the most difficult part of this regulation. <br />That is on page 3 of the proposed regulation, at the bottom of page 3. <br />In the previous draft considered by the board we defined the low hazard <br /> <br />-2- <br />