(1) The local government shall develop guidelines for administration of the designated matters of state interest. The content of such guidelines shall be such as to facilitate administration of matters of state interest consistent with sections 24-65.1-202 and 24-65.1-204.
(2) A local government may adopt regulations interpreting and applying its adopted guidelines in relation to specific developments in areas of state interest and to specific activities of state interest.
(3) No provision in this article shall be construed as prohibiting a local government from adopting guidelines or regulations containing requirements which are more stringent than the requirements of the criteria listed in sections 24-65.1-202 and 24-65.1-204.
Source: L. 74: Entire article added, p. 347, § 1, effective May 17.
ANNOTATION
Board of commissioners was authorized to enact wetlands and nuisance regulations that were more stringent than those embodied in § 24-65.1-204. Colo. Springs v. Eagle County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo. App. 1994).
No manifest or irreconcilable conflict between this article and the statutes that govern the transportation planning process, §§ 43-1-1101 to 43-1-1105. Although title 43 vests Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) with broad authority over the planning and construction of highways, the exercise of this authority does not require that CDOT be free of every conceivable regulation under this article. Indeed, this article and title 43 are easily reconciled because the schemes advance compatible goals. Although CDOT has the final word over the state's transportation plan, under § 43-1-1103 (5)(b), it must consider local concerns "including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors". Similarly, consistent with § 24-65.1-204 (5)(c), local governments must exercise their regulatory powers under this article in a manner that does not conflict with state transportation plans. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).
No express or implied preemption by state of city's ability to regulate transportation planning or construction under this section. With respect to express preemption argument, contrary to CDOT's argument, § 43-1-1101 does not express an unequivocal intent to preempt all local regulation of transportation issues. The statute does not foreclose all regulation; it remains open to the possibility that the statewide planning process will leave some questions unresolved and that local governments may decide those matters by regulation. With respect to implied preemption, the court cannot conclude that CDOT was meant to occupy the entire field of transportation planning when the legislature has indicated that local governments may regulate the site selection of airports, transit terminals, and highways. CDOT's role in transportation planning does not necessarily conflict with, or dominate, the city's interest in preserving the use and value of land. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).