In the wake of last week’s meeting of the La Plata County Planning Commission, County Commissioner Marsha Porter-Norton is responding to concerns voiced by members of the Planning Commission in the hopes of preventing ongoing discontent.

She is meeting with each member of the commission to address lingering concerns.

The dramatic climax of the Feb. 23 meeting did not stem from the revisions to the proposed draft of the county’s oil and gas regulations, contained within Chapter 90. Rather, the tensions peaked when confusion over the Planning Commission’s procedural duties in the revision process came to light.

As Porter-Norton stressed in Wednesday’s board discussion time and a subsequent interview with The Durango Herald, the Chapter 90 revision process is procedurally different from past land-use code revisions and other items that go before the Planning Commission.

However, she said those differences were communicated to planning commissioners and the public often and thoroughly throughout the process.

Most items flow procedurally to the Planning Commission for recommendation and then to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. But given the far-reaching impacts and predictably high level of public interest in the regulations concerning well setbacks and financial assurances, county commissioners decided to hold public meetings and give guidance to staff on those two issues before the draft ever went before the Planning Commission.

“These are extremely difficult, complex topics,” Porter-Norton said. “... This comes to us anyway.”

As a result of the process, County Attorney Sheryl Rogers told planning commissioners on Feb. 23 that any changes to sections of the chapter concerning setbacks or financial assurances should be made at the direction of the BoCC, not the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission is free to hear public comment on those matters and make suggestions to the BoCC, Rogers’ statements seemed to cause confusion over the Planning Commission’s role.

In the audience, members of the public took that confusion and ran with it.

David Peters, former chairman of the La Plata County Republican Central Committee, received applause when he told the Planning Commission he had “some ethical concerns” with Rogers’ statements.

Porter-Norton stressed that both the public and members of the Planning Commission had many opportunities to weigh in on the draft, including during 14 public meetings over the last two years.

She also defended the procedure, stating that planning commissioners had “ample time to tell us in the beginning that they had concerns with the process.”

In a Feb. 9 presentation, Rogers told the planning commissioners that the two “very substantive topics” were “not before you.”

“It was surprising to hear some people caught off guard at the last minute,” Porter-Norton said.

Planning Commissioners Charly Minkler and Clark Craig expressed the most surprise and discontent over the process last week. Minkler said he found the procedure “somewhat disturbing.”

In an interview with the Herald after a private meeting with Porter-Norton on Wednesday, Minkler said he was more comfortable with the process.

“I have a better understanding of the work put in by the BoCC and County Planning Department and the attorney's office and recognize all those many hours and commend them for it,” he said. “They did a lot of heavy lifting.”

Minkler said his primary goal remains to ensure that those most affected by the regulations – especially landowners in the southeastern corner of the county where most of the drilling occurs – are heard.

He said he was aware of many of the opportunities for comment, but was unable to attend most of the public meetings held since the first draft of Chapter 90 was released in August because of farming and ranching commitments.

“I just want to make sure that up to the last minute, folks have ample opportunity to be heard on all issues in the proposed code revisions and then the Planning Commission can make recommendations to the BoCC based upon this last opportunity for input and then they can act as they choose,” Minkler said.

Planning Commission chairwoman Geri Malandra appeared more at ease with the procedural guidelines stated by Rogers at the Feb. 23 meeting, in part, she said, because she had the time to attend various public meetings over the recent months.

“It was in writing in the materials ... and it was also laid out in some of the earlier meetings about oil and gas,” Malandra said. “But again, this is where I don't think we can expect every planning commissioner to attend every one of those meetings, read the documents and read the minutes.”

While the aberration in the process did not catch Malandra by surprise, she said she understands how it may have done so for Planning Commission members who were unable to dedicate as much time to the volunteer position.

Although the BoCC took the lead in hashing out the minutiae of regulations concerning setbacks and financial assurances, the Planning Commission may still make recommendations, offer feedback or even vote not to recommend that chapter to the BoCC.

“I believe firmly in the role of the planning commission as a forum for public testimony,” Malandra said. “... We listen very carefully and take their comments into consideration.”

rschafir@durangoherald.com