Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />they consisted mostly of exceptions. They started out to prevent the <br />occupation of floodplains and before they were completed virtually <br />everything was permitted. Almost every regulation that we studied is <br />preoccupied with defining exceptions. This is very confusing because <br />when you attempt to delineate things that can be done within a flood~' <br />plain, you can come up with a thousand things like pitching horseshoes, <br />playing tiddlywinks and on and on. We took a different approach. <br />Rather than trying to describe what can be done within a floodplain, we <br />attempted to describe what cannot be done. The problem is within the <br />local communities. People can come up with a hundred reasons why they <br />should be able to do something other than what is in the ordinance. <br />And that is the reason why exceptions are constantly written into ordi- <br />nances. <br /> <br />What we have here is not going to be acceptable to a lot of people. <br />We have requested that the Department of Local Affairs, which has the <br />coordinating responsibility under this House Bill 1041, to distribute <br />both the criteria and this proposed regulation.to all the cities and <br />counties in the state of Colorado, with the request that they submit <br />written comments to the board either on the criteria or on the model <br />regulation not later than November 15 of this year. Our next board <br />meeting is now tentatively scheduled for December 4. We had hoped to <br />get comments so that we could revise the criteria or the model regula- <br />tion, or both, in time then to make a final consideration of these <br />matters by December 4. Our deadline for written comments from the <br />local governments is November 15. In the letter they were advised that <br />they are invited to come before the board and make any verbal presen- <br />tation at the December 4 meeting. That is the staff recommendation at <br />this time. (See Appendix B). <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Does anybody on the board have any comments or questions? <br />John. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: \olas it your intention possibly to discuss the substance <br />of this proposed regulation? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I think we should disCJSS it with the understanding that <br />we hope to make a final decision at the December 4 meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: There are copies in the back of the room. I think every- <br />body has a copy, if they desired one. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: Well, I have some questions on page 3, paragraph 4, the <br />definition of low hazard zone. I also have a question as to whether <br />or not on page 5 under 2'..4, this includes the low hazard area, and I <br />assume it does. I have another question on 3.2 under exceptions as to <br />why the words "than one hundred square feet" were included. In other <br />words, why there is an exception for a building that is closer than <br />fifteen feet from the boundary of the low hazard zone. I was curious <br />also, Larry, why the word "lowest" wasn't used instead of "lower floor" <br />under subparagraph (c). Those happen to be the items that I picked <br /> <br />-5- <br />