Date: 02/25/2010
Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB10-1205
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
11:33 AM -- House Bill 10-1205
Representative Ryden, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1205, concerning land use planning by local governments to address the impacts of land use development upon military installations in close proximity to such governments. Representative Ryden discussed her intentions for sponsoring the bill, and provided background on her reasons for introducing the legislation. Representative Ryden also discussed the benefits of military installations to communities and the state, and the ramifications of not passing the bill. Representative Ryden responded to questions regarding the need for the separate components of military installations to receive notice of area zoning changes. Discussion ensued regarding the scope of the bill.
11:44 AM
Discussion continued regarding the scope of House Bill 10-1205, and the powers involved in grouping military installations in the list of facilities considered areas of state interest (HB 1041 powers). Representative Ryden responded to questions regarding notification that is sent to homeowners associations when zoning changes are proposed.
11:49 AM
The following persons testified regarding House Bill 10-1205:
11:50 AM -- Mr. Chris Elliott, representing the Colorado Association of Homebuilders, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Elliott provided an example of a situation that resulted in the need to reconsider a development plan, and suggested that the bill's functions go beyond merely notifying commanding officers of flying missions at military installations, causing developers to alter the use of their property. Mr. Elliott suggested that certain state powers for property classification have been misinterpreted.
12:00 PM
Mr. Elliott responded to questions regarding the negative implications of providing notice of noise associated with military flights. Mr. Elliott provided examples of the misuse of HB 1041 powers. Discussion ensued on this point. Mr. Elliott responded to further questions regarding the impact of the bill on local land use master plans. Discussion ensued regarding a forthcoming amendment to address Mr. Elliott's concerns.
12:08 PM -- Mr. John Cassiani, representing the Banning Lewis Ranch, testified in opposition to House Bill 10-1205. Committee members received a map showing flight patterns associated with airfields near the development (Attachment B). Mr. Cassiani discussed the impact of an adjacent military base on his residential development, and expressed concerns with the ability of the military to infringe upon his land use under the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the notification process for land use changes under current law. Mr. Elliott expressed reservations regarding the treatment of HB 1041 powers by the bill. Mr. Cassiani responded to questions regarding the financial impact of his development, and the negative impacts of the bill on his ability to properly develop the Banning Lewis Ranch.
12:20 PM
Mr. Cassiani responded to questions regarding the ability to amend the bill to address his reservations with the legislation.
12:22 PM -- Mr. Randy Case, representing himself and Case International Company, testified in opposition to the bill. Committee members received a memorandum addressed to Mr. Case describing potential objections to House Bill 10-1205 (Attachment C). Mr. Case discussed his work in the development business. Mr. Case spoke in favor of the notification provision of the bill, but objected to the portions that alter private land use. Mr. Case referenced the concerns raised in Attachment C. Mr. Case then discussed certain changes by military installations that have impacted his developments. Mr. Case responded to questions regarding the potential for property devaluation based on land use changes at adjacent military installations, as addressed in Attachment C.
12:32 PM -- Brigadier General Trulan Eyre, representing the Colorado Air National Guard, testified in favor of House Bill 10-1205. Mr. Eyre discussed the positive impacts of the bill on the mission of the National Guard and regional economies. General Eyre rebutted the idea that the bill will result in government takings of property near military installations, and discussed the positive effects the bill will have on the Colorado's reputation for hosting military missions. General Eyre discussed the need to add military installations to the list of facilities considered areas of state interest under HB 1041 powers, and explained how the bill conforms to powers expressed in current law. General Eyre said the military is not interested in site plans. General Eyre responded to questions regarding the use of HB 1041 powers by local governments under the bill, and its implications with regard to government taking of property.
12:43 PM
General Eyre responded to questions regarding the effect of removing the portion in the bill pertaining to HB 1041 powers. General Eyre responded to questions regarding the bill's impact on the potential for a Colorado air base to be granted a future fighter jet mission. Discussion ensued regarding the potential benefit to the military of granting HB 1041 powers to local governments over military installations. The discussion included the potential use of HB 1041 powers to deprive a landowner of compensation for changing the owner's land use.
12:54 PM
Discussion continued regarding the implications of granting HB 1041 powers to local governments.
12:57 PM -- Mr. Kevin Ward, representing the U.S. Department of Defense, testified in favor of House Bill 10-1205. Mr. Ward provided clarification regarding the treatment of HB 1041 powers by the bill, and the benefits to the military of listing military installations as key state facilities. Mr. Ward also discussed the impact of the bill on government taking powers, and the bill's treatment of land use notice provisions. Mr. Ward responded to questions regarding his statement that developers must discourage incompatible use of property, and instances where residential development may constitute an incompatible use.
01:09 PM
Mr. Ward responded to questions regarding remedies available to developers who lose full property development rights, and the potential for the exercise of HB 1041 powers to result in loss of property values. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of land use rules on future military missions in Colorado, and the land use powers available to local governments.
01:15 PM -- Mr. Kevin Hogan, representing the Aurora Chamber of Commerce, testified in favor of the bill. Mr. Hogan discussed the impact of potential closures of military installations on Aurora, and the impact the bill may have on keeping these facilities open.
01:19 PM -- Mr. Scott Smith, representing La Plata Communities, testified in opposition to House Bill 10-1205. Mr. Smith discussed the interplay between the military and his development company on issues concerning a development that is adjacent to a military installation, and provided examples of instances where developments have received negative feedback from the military based on certain features in the developments or planned developments. Mr. Smith discussed the potential for confusion to occur in the planning process as a result of the bill, and responded to questions regarding his interactions with the Air Force Academy, which is adjacent to a residential development. Discussion returned to the granting of HB 1041 powers to local governments by the bill.
01:27 PM
The bill was laid over until, Tuesday, March 2nd. The committee adjourned.