Town watershed measure goes to public

Citizens plan solidarity march

A more fine-tuned version of an ordinance designed to protect Crested Butte’s watershed from future development got its first airing during a Crested Butte Town Council meeting on Monday, April 7. The Town Council is continuing to tweak the new version of its Watershed Protection Ordinance, which will replace the town’s existing ordinance.

 The new version of the ordinance does not prohibit storage of hazardous and toxic materials in the watershed, as the first draft did, but mandates that no pesticides, petroleum products or like substances may be stored within 500 feet of any water bodies.
“We had the feeling that to prohibit it outright made it difficult for an applicant to fit into it,” explained town attorney John Belkin. “We’re more comfortable with 500 feet from a water body.”
Like the first draft, the ordinance also forbids any construction in a creek, stream, river or lake, except when it’s authorized by the town.
The April 7 meeting was the second opportunity the Crested Butte Town Council had to view its new watershed ordinance, which lets the town take advantage of a state statute that allows towns to prohibit and mitigate impacts to their water supply within a five-mile area. In March, special counsel Barbara Green told the town that the revised ordinance was more stringent than the old version.
The ordinance was first amended in 1996 to deal with septic systems. The town has been updating the watershed ordinance for the last year; it adopted a temporary moratorium preventing development within the town’s watershed in August 2007. The ordinance essentially requires a permit for land use change activity within the town’s watershed, with varying degrees of overview depending on the project.
The new draft ordinance outlines two different permit processes, for major impact and minor impact projects. Minor impact projects would be unlikely to have any impacts on the watershed. If the ordinance is approved, those projects would be approved administratively but would require a public notice.
Major impact projects would prompt a much more stringent process, with any permit ultimately approved by the Town Council.
The meat of the ordinance is contained in its approval standards to protect the watershed, which the Town Council is currently considering.
During the meeting on April 7, Belkin explained that the new language prohibiting storage of hazardous material within 500 feet of a water body was in line with standards set in other towns. “Many communities have similar things,” he said.
Town Council member Skip Berkshire pointed out that the new draft prohibits the storage of sand and salt for road de-icing within 500 feet of a water body but is not clear about whether it can be used in the zone.
He asked if the ordinance would forbid the use of magnesium chloride, a binding agent used on dirt roads, on nearby Kebler Pass Road. The town staff agreed to investigate the matter further. In addition, following a question from town resident Sue Navy, the town agreed to investigate if the 500-foot standard would be adequate if a large amount of liquid was stored at a potential site.
Town Council member Billy Rankin questioned the 500-foot standard, noting that it would make the town’s ordinance prescriptive, with specific standards, rather than performance-based, which would outline what’s desired and allows the developer to come up with a solution.
Bernholtz commented that the desired result of the standards is that no hazardous materials end up in the town’s water supply.
Belkin said the town also added provisions that allow the town to hold a parent company of a project applicant financially accountable for actions of the applicant, and allows town staff access to the applicant’s property to assess compliance with standards. Belkin explained that this had been requested by town staff on previous occasions. “LC [Adams, former public works director] wanted to be able to access the site anytime he needed to,” he said.
To conclude the discussion, Bernholtz asked, as he had at a previous discussion, if Belkin believed that the ordinance was forward-thinking and would set the town apart. “Is this an ordinance that other communities will look to?” he asked.
Belkin answered that other communities had asked to see a draft of the ordinance.
With that, the Town Council agreed to set the watershed ordinance, officially Ordinance No. 6, Series 2008, for public hearing on Monday, April 21. A new draft of the ordinance will be available with the changes at that time.
The Town Council hopes to have its new watershed ordinance in place by June 1 when the moratorium banning construction in the watershed expires.
Some town residents appear to be rallying behind the adoption of the revised watershed ordinance. A group of citizens is organizing a candlelight walk in support of the ordinance on April 21. Residents are asked to gather at the parking lot at First Street and Elk Avenue with their own candles for a procession that will end at Town Council chambers.