The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
35-day review period will end with a recommendation to adopt, or not
With a sigh of relief and even a “yee-ha,” the Board of County Commissioners voted to send the latest draft of the county’s Special Development Project Resolution with its amendments, back to the Planning Commission for a final review, at a regular meeting Tuesday, April 21.
A joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the commissioners on Friday, April 17, gave the two groups enough time to put the finishing touches on the fourth draft of the resolution, which has been in the works for more than two years.
The resolution is being developed to provide a different standard for “mega-projects” in the county that meet certain significant financial, employment or impact criteria.
There are two projects currently being considered in the county that would need to go through the resolution’s permitting process: a molybdenum mine on Mt. Emmons and the expansion of Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) onto neighboring Snodgrass Mountain.
Representatives from both projects have been active in the revision process and both have issued letters that detail some of their concerns with the fourth draft of the resolution and make recommendations on how to make them more accommodating to their endeavors.
In a letter from CBMR to the county commissioners, vice president of resort planning and development Michael Kraatz reminds the county that the proposed expansion of the ski area will take place entirely on federal land that has been set aside for skiing under a Special Use Permit. According to Kraatz, CBMR did not believe the county had the authority to regulate such a recreational project.
“These comments focus on the application of the Resolution to a recreational development entirely on federal lands, because that is the case with Snodgrass Mountain,” Kraatz wrote.
This is a point that the county has responded to repeatedly, and uniformly, throughout the revision process. The county’s attorney, David Baumgarten, contends that the statute that the resolution is rooted in allows the county to regulate all projects within its boundary, regardless of where the projects are.
But although CBMR officials contend that the expansion onto Snodgrass Mountain cannot be regulated by the resolution, they have continued to be active in the process and offered comments on the progression of the revision at every stage.
In response to the fourth draft, Kraatz wrote, “The Resolution still needs work. As drafted the Resolution remains a burdensome, expensive, time consuming and inappropriate tool for the County to review a recreational development on federal lands.”
Kraatz also recommends that the county include language in the resolution to direct planning department staff to integrate the review of permit applications with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which is one of the stated goals of the resolution.
Although the county has repeatedly said that it wants the resolution to work alongside the NEPA process, there is little language in the document that forces the issue and Kraatz maintains, “The application requirements duplicate and are redundant with the requirements of the Federal NEPA process.”
Another recommendation made by CBMR is to extend the term of the permit, which would expire 12 months after being issued if “the applicant does not initiate the permitted development.”
The resort also makes the argument in its letter that the expansion of the resort does not qualify as a major development project.
The Mt. Emmons Moly Company, which is proposing a molybdenum mine west of Crested Butte, recently sent a letter that addresses many of the concerns it had when the resolution was in its second version.
The company’s first concern with the resolution is that it imposes county regulations on private land. The letter, dated April 20, says, “The Resolution generally imposes many burdens on private property owners for the public good that should more properly be borne by the public at large.”
The company’s letter also maintains the resolution grants broad authority to the county to regulate activities on private property based on “standards that are insufficiently specific to ensure that the authority is exercised.”
The third and final comment in the letter also refers to the unconstitutionality of the powers the county is exercising on private property.
The comments and recommendations detailed in the letters, along with comments from the public, can still be incorporated into the resolution, with the addition of an amendment that is approved by the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Commission during their final review of the document.
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously at Tuesday’s meeting to initiate a final Planning Commission review of the resolution.
With the regulations officially back on the Planning Commission desk, the document will go through a 35-day final review process, which can be extended at the request of the Planning Commission.
The final review will result in a Planning Commission recommendation to the BOCC on whether or not to adopt the regulations, which will initiate the public hearing process at least 30 days from May 1.
