HomeMy WebLinkAbout790287.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO CONCERNING AUDREY J. ANDERSEN'S DOG KENNEL.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1979, Audrey J. Andersen appeared
before the Board of Adjustment to appeal a decision of the De-
partment of Planning Services concerning a zoning violation for
expansion of a dog kennel, and
WHEREAS, said Board of Adjustment denied the appeal of
Audrey J. Andersen, and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 1979, the Board of County Commis-
sioners considered said violation and has decided to allow said
violation to continue until such time as the special use permit
can be amended and that the application for amendment of the
special use permit must be filed by December 15, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com-
missioners that the zoning violation be, and hereby is , allowed
to continue until such time as an application for amendment to
the special use permit for a dog kennel has been filed by Audrey
J. Andersen, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
that said application shall be filed by December 15, 1979 .
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 7th day of
November, A.D. , 1979 .
ATTEST: ,G.u- !iW ( *- :`'w'Y `mil BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld Weld County Clerk and Recorder l and Clerk to the Bo • Norman Carlson, Chairman (Aye)
By: //�
Deputy Count si'erk r • i�2/( %.cam-7�.c.r�l/ (Aye)
Ly Dunbar
A• : O/V/$� AS TO FORM: (ABSENT)
• C. W. Kirby
County Attorney
� �'. (1Lya l
Leei and L. Roe
V/12lJ22lIAAAye)
J9ne K. Stein
/ PL0679
DATE PRESENTED: NOVEMBER 14 , 1979
790287
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTI T
MOTION TO GRANT OR DENY APPEAL
Case No. V-773 : 79: 33 Date 10/25/79
APPEAL OF Audrey J. Andersen
Address 17164 I-25-Access Road East , Platteville, CO 80651
Moved by ( --.;:-. . .'/C-- ,--#2,:,-,(7----\.. that the following resolution be
introduced for passage by the Weld County Board of Adjustment :
Be it therefore resolved by the Weld County Board of
Adjustment that the appeal of Audrey J. Andersen
for a variance or appeal described as :
To appeal a decision of the Department of Planning Services
made in the administration and enforcement of the Weld County
Zoning Resolution as set forth in Section 9. 1 . 1 of the Weld
County Zoning Resolution
on the following described property :
Pt. W SW* Section 2 , T3N, R68W ?of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
Colorado
be g ff gc (denied) for the following reasons :
Mr . Miller made a motion to deny V-773 : 79: 33 based on the fact
that the Zoning Resolution does define an adult dog as being
4 months of age and that is what the Board must go by.
•
Motion seconded by f "�- :/' (l ��
Vote : For Granting of Appeal For Denial of Appeal
7�
J
f
/ -K
LA 7
). v'4'-
•
\„._)
The Weld County Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled meeting
Thursday, October 25, 1979,1 in the third floor hearing room,.. Weld
County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado
Roll Call was as follows:
Gordon Lacy Present
Frank Stewart P±esent
Carroll Miller Present •
Homer Warren Present
Walter Teel Present
Joe Garcia Present
Connie Green Present (Arrived at 2: 07)
David Droegemueller Absent
Frank Yamaguchi Present
Also present were: - Vickie Traxler, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tom Honn) Zoning Administrator
Bob Loweribach, Assistant County Attorney
As a quorum was present, the meeting proceeded as scheduled. Minutes
of the last meeting were apprloved as submitted.
APPLICANT: Earl D. Mackey
CASE NUMBER: V-771 : 79 :31 -
SUBJECT: 180' from the 180' minimum lot width requirement in the ,
Agricultural Zone District
LOCATION: 1 mile east of thel Town of LaSalle
APPEARANCE: Earl D. Mackey ,
DISCUSSION: Mr. Mackey stated that he is requesting the variance on
the proposed Lot B so that the lot could be sold. Carroll Miller
asked about the access to Let B and whose land it would cross. Mr.
Mackey -stated that it wouldlcross what was Darrell Borst's parcel
and would then come across his own land. He further stated that
there was a 40' permanent easement . Chuck Cunliffe stated that
there is a 40' permanent easement of record and that if the recorded
exemption is approved, Mr. Mackey was- proposing a 20' easement to
Lot B which would become of ,record. . Frank Stewart asked if Mr.
Mackey presently owned Lot A. Mr. Mackey stated that he did and
that it was farm. grourid. He further stated that the buildings on
the property were no good arid should be torn down and a new house
built on the property. Frank Yamaguchi asked the applicant if the
existing easement could be used by anyone including a new owner of
Lot B. Mr. Mackey stated that his attorney told him the easement
included anything he ever wanted to bring in. A discussion followed
concerning the easement. Larry Thomason, present owner of the pro-
perty through which the easemenf- runs stated his concerns about how
many residences were proposed and stated that he would be against
the variance if more than one residence was proposed. Johnny Alles,
President of Union Ditch Company stated the objections of the Ditch
Company. John Lee Alles also stated objections to the variance.
MOTION: Carroll Miller made a motion to approve V-771 :79:31 as re-
quested for the record' s sake. Motion was seconded by Connie Green.
ANote of '!no'9,.was cast by all Board Members. Request denied.
0.S '
APPLICANT: Paul Spencer '
CASE NUMBER: ' V-772:79 : 32
SUBJECT: 180' from the 180' minimum lot width requirement in the
Agricultural Zone District
LOCATION: 6-1/2 miles north of Windsor and 1 mile southeast of the
Black Hollow Reservoir
APPEARANCE: Paul Spencer •
DISCUSSION: Mr. Spencer stated that he would like to correct the info-
mation read by the Assistant County Attorney. He stated that the
property is located 7-1/2 Miles north'.of Windsor and 1-1/2 miles
southwest of Black Hollow.' Secondly he stated that he was not
applying for a recorded exemption to divide the property. He stated
that he has a contract to purchase 1 acre from a 160 acre parcel and
therefore was not dividing' any property. He further stated that
there is a road which crosses Cactus Hill Lateral Ditch which has
been open to the public use for at least 30 years and no one would
be hendered from using it., This road comes up to the corner of the
parcel and would be a part, of what he is purchasing. Connie Green
asked if the County had been maintaining this road. Mr. Spencer
said that they had until they had discovered that it was not a County
Road and had ceased the maintenance of it . Mr. Spencer stated that
his family suffered from allergies and that was his reason for wanting
to build a single family residence on the property. He further stated
that 'he had talked to Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator and that Mr . Honn
had indicated his recommendation or approval of the recorded exemption
because the property was wasteland and that he had gone on with the
application because he felt that he had a good chance of getting it
approved. A discussion followed regarding the maintenance of the
road. Vickie Traxler stated that in her conversation with the County
Engineer he stated that he did not realize that the County had been
maintaining the private road and thought it :was only being used as a
means to get through to the County Road. He further stated that the
County is not maintaining the County Road pass the 1/2 section line.
MOTION: Carroll Miller made a motion to approve V-772 :79: 32 as requested
for the record' s sake. Motion seconded by Frank Stewart. A vote of
"no" was cast by all Board Members. Request denied.
APPLICANT: Audrey J. Andersen .
CASE NUMBER: V-773 :79: 33
SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative Decision
LOCATION: :Approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of Mead immediately adja-
cent to I-25 and 1/2 mile south of County Road 38
APPEARANCE: Audrey Andersen !
DISCUSSION: Mrs. Andersen stated that 7 years ago she had applied for
and received a special use permit and that the permit does not mem-
tion anything about puppies. She further stated that when they
applied they applied for a 'breeding farm and that in the greyhound
business, puppies are puppies until they. reach 14 months of age. She
stated that at times they hoard matrons with puppies for another grey-
hound owner and that they were over the limit of 40 dogs allowed by
the special use permit if the puppies were being included. Joe Garcia
referred to the transcript '1of the Board of County Commissioners' hear-
ing and read excerpts from the the hearing referring to the maximum
number of pups and dogs. He stated that he felt the maximum number
of dogs referred to included pups and adult dogs. He further stated
that it was clear that the maximum number was not to exceed 40
'whether on a temporary or permanent basis. A discussion followed in
which Chuck Cunliffe stated the procedures necessary for Mrs. Andersen
to apply to amend the special use permit to allow for a larger number
of dogs. Mr. Kenneth Andersen spoke in favor of granting the appeal.
MOTION: Carroll Miller made a motion to deny V-773: 79: 33 based on the
fact that the Zoning Resolution defines adult dogs as being 4 months
of age and that is what the Board has to go by. Frank Stewart seconded
the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Appeal denied.
APPLICANT: Charles Ryberg
CASE NUMBER: V-774: 79 :34
SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative Decision
LOCATION: •1 mile north of Lochbuie
APPEARANCE: Charles Ryberg; John Dent, Attorney
DISCUSSION: Mr. Dent stated that Mr. Ryberg was appealing the decision
of the Planning Staff notito allow him to apply for a special use
permit. He stated that Mr. Ryberg was discouraged and told not to
submit an application and 'now would like permission from the Board of
Adjustment to submit an application for a special use permit to the
Planning Commission. Chuck Cunliffe stated that the use of the pro-
perty was not a use which ;was allowed under the Weld County Zoning
Resolution and, therefore was not applicable to a special use permit .
A discussion followed concerning the uses permitted under a special
use permit in the Agricultural Zone. It was pointed out that the
Zoning Resolution does provide- for uses related in nature to the
listed uses, but the Planning Staff' s determination- was that the
house moving business was Inot a use related to any of the listed
uses. Connie Green stated that she felt the house moving business
could be related in- nature! to a salvage yard because in a sense, the
houses were being salvaged from one place and moved to another. Bob
Lowenbach stated that it appeared the Board had two questions to
decide. First, whether th'e Department of Planning Services Staff may
turn down any application for whatever reason and secondly, whether
Mr. Ryberg's use was similar to other special uses and therefore
whether he may apply for aispecial use permit. This was discussed
at length by the Board Members. Tom Honn outlined the staff 's inter-
pretation of the procedural role of the Staff, Planning Commission,
and Board of Adjustment according to -the Weld County Zoning Resolution
regarding administrative appeals. He also advised the Board that the
staff ' s opinion was that the applicant ' s use was not a use listed as
a special use nor was' it similar to any of the listed special uses.
Because of this opinion the staff would not accept an application for
a special use permit in this case. Tom Honn indicated it is the
staff ' s opinion that the role of the Board of Adjustment is to rule
on the question of the interpretation of whether the use of the pro-
perty by the applicant is similar in nature to the uses listed as
special uses. He further stated his belief that the staff is not
required by the Zoning Resolution-to accept all applications no matter
how dissimilar the proposed use is from the uses listed as being
acceptable. Tom Honn indicated that he felt if the Board were to
act favorably on the issue of accepting applications irregardless of
the use, any use could be applied for as•;a special use and that is
not appropriate under the Zoning Resolution. Mr. Ryberg then went to
the podium and gave a summary of the occurences to date and his reasons
why his request should be approved.
� a Sri
MOTION: Frank Stewart made a motion to deny V-774 :79: 34 because he
• felt that the uses in they Agricultural Zone should be controlled and
he did not feel like the house moving business hould be allowed
without having the zone changed. He further stated that he did not
feel that anyone should be allowed to make application for a special
use when that use did notlfit the area under the Zoning Resolution.
The motion was seconded by Walter Teel. A vote of no was cast by
all members except Mr. Stewart and Mr. Tell. Connie Green made a
motion to approve V-774:79: 34 because she felt the house moving
business was related in nature to a salvage yard and therefore, she
felt that Mr. Ryberg should have a chance to apply to the Planning
Commission for a special use permit . The motion was seconded by
Mr. Yamaguchi . A vote of (yes was cast by all Board members except
Mr. Stewart and Mr. Teel voting no. Motion carried. Appeal approved.
APPLICANT: Eldon Kurtenbach
CASE NUMBER: V-775 :79: 35
SUBJECT: 39' from the 180' vinimum lot width requirement in the
'Agricultural Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles southwest of Johnstown
APPEARANCE: Eldon Kurtenbach
DISCUSSION: Mr. Kurtenbach stated that at one time he owned Lots 4,
5, and 6 and that he he has applied to replat two of the lots. Lots
4 and 6 have been sold. ' He will be taking 39 ' from Lot 5 and adding
it to Lot 4 as a condition' of the sale of . Lot 4. My Wayne Bules,
surrounding property owner, spoke against the granting of the variance.
MOTION: Joe Garcia made a motion to approve V-775: 79: 35 based on the
recommendations of the staff and also because it would provide
adequate sight distance and adequate access, and that the letters of
objection were not relevant to the issue of whether the lot width
variance should be granted,.. Walter Teel seconded the motion. Motion
carried by unanimous vote. Request approved.
APPLICANT: Joe Romero
CASE NUMBER: V-776:79: 36
SUBJECT: 77' from the 180' minimum lot width in the Agricultural Zone
District
LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles east of LaSalle
APPEARANCE: Joe Romero, David' Emmert, Attorney
DISCUSSION: Mr. Emmert stated that Mr. Romero would like to divide his
property in order for his daughter to build a residence. He further
stated that Mr. Romero' s wLfe passed away last year and that it would
be beneficial to him to have his daughter living close to him. He also
stated that the remainder of the parcel would continue to be used as
farm land. •
MOTION: Connie Green made a motion to approve V-776 :79 : 36 because it
would not appear to create a detriment to the public good and it
would appear to provide fo'r adequate sight distance while entering
County Road 43. Homer Warren seconded the motion. Motion carried by
unanimous vote. Request approved.
•
,,,4% pec lly submitted,
dr
•
Carole S. Dodge
Secretary to Board of Adjustment
11 c4i
cxe
SUMMARY SHEET V - U
For
June 13, 1979 Board of County Commissioners ' Hearing
Kenneth L. and Audrey J. Anderson RE: Expansion of dog kennel
VI-104: 78 :28 without proper permit
The property on which the violation is occurring is described as Pt . W?
SW* Section 2, T3N, R68W of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado. The
property is located approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of Mead, im-
mediately adjacent to I-25 and 1/2 mile south of County Road 38.
The zoning violation is an expansion of a dog kennel without the proper
special use permit in the Agricultural Zone District, which is a viola-
tion of Section 3. 3 E of the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
On February 7, 1979, this matter was brought before the Board of County
Commissioners. It was agreed at that time that the matter would be
postponed for further study to see how many dogs can be properly bared
and housed at the existing dog kennel facility.
After considerable effort to locate an individual who would qualify as
an expert in the field of greyhound dogs, I was able to contact Mr. .
Earl Anderson who is a member ,of the National Greyhound Association,
and who has proved to be extremely helpful and has given a tremendous
amount of his personal time to assist me in this matter.
On February 16, 1979, Mr. Earl Anderson accompanied me to Mr. and Mrs.
Kenneth Anderson' s dog kennel if or the purpose of a thorough investigation
of said facility to determine 1f the dogs presently housed within the
facility exceed what Mr. Earl Anderson feels can be properly maintained
within the existing facility. Upon completion of the inspection, Earl
felt that the number of dogs far exceeded what could feasibly be main-
tained.
With Mr. Earl Anderson' s help,' as well as Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson' s
- continued cooperation in the past, Ihave'"gained a much better perspective
of dog kennel operations, and through this knowledge have grown more and
more concerned about the necessity to establish better guidelines for
dog kennel operations in the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
/It is recommended to the Boardlof County Commissioners by the Department
of Planning Services that Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson be authorized to
apply for an additional special use permit to enlarge- their existing dog
kennel facility. Mr. and Mrs. ' Kenneth Anderson have impressed upon me
how much time in a 24 hour span has to be spent by both of them to main-
tain their present dog kennel.; Mr. Earl Anderson is symphatic with Mr.
and Mr. Kenneth Anderson' s problem and know that if, in enlarging their
present-facility, they had some specific guidelines to help them, they
could, in the long run ease their work load in a 24 hour span.
I realize that any guidelines that Weld County proposes for dog kennels
must go through the Weld County Zoning Resolution Amendment process, just
as everything else must . However, I wish to take advantage of this op-
portunity to highlight the existing problem.
n
' Kenneth L. and Audrey J, Anderrson
VT-104:78 :28
SUMMARY SHEET
June 13, 1979
Mr. Earl Anderson has spent many hours trying to establish some guidelines
to help Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson as well as numerous other dog kennels
in Weld County and a sketch plan of his proposal is available for your
observations.
SIHSPECTORI'S REPORT
Kenneth Anderson No : VI-104:78 :28
Name:
Legal Description of Property: Pt . WlSW4 Section 2, T3N, R68W
Date: 2/16/79 Time: 10:45
Mr. Earl Anderson who is a membler of the National Greyhound Association
Executive Committee, went with me to the Anderson Kennel upon the request
of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Earl Anderson inspected the
facility for the purpose of determining how many dogs the existing facility
could humanly support . Upon completion of his investigation, Mr. Anderson
informed me that he felt the facility was over crowded. He will submit a
written summation of his findings to me in the near future. He further
invited me to his greyhound facility in the Greeley area which will help me
reach a better understanding of greyhound kennels as well as help me in
comparison. A date will be set up in the near future to walk through Mr.
Earl Anderson' s greyhound facility.
Earl Anderson is willing to help Weld County establish some guidelines to
follow in the future to help determine the space requirements for greyhound
dog kennels.
Zonir/inspector
Note : Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
% INSECTOR"S REPORT S
Name : Kenneth Anderson No : VI-104:78 .28
Legal Description of Property: Pt. WZSW, Section 2, T3N, R68W
Date: March 26, 1979 Time: 10 :30 AM
As per my inspection report of February 16, 1979, it was agreed that I
would take a tour of Earl Anderson' s greyhound dog kennel facility for
comparison's sake in regard to this violation. Today, Earl Anderson gave
me a tour of his facility. He showed me a ten acre portion of his parcel
of land which houses his kennel facility. At the present time, Mr.
Anderson has approximately 35 to 40 dogs and has the facilities to maintain
a lot more dogs than30 or 40 he now has . After comparing the two different
facilities, it is apparent to me that the Kenneth Andersons cannot feasibly
i
support any more than the 40 dogs they originally applied for with their
special use permit in 1972. This matter will be brought to the attention
of the Board of County Commissioners and necessary action will be taken.
Zoni Inspector
Note: Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
I
�_ S",
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
' PHONE (303)356-4000 EXT.404
• • 915 10TH STREET
il
II
GREELEY,COLORADO 60631
r
r{
COLORADO
{
June 4, 1979 '
I
I
Mr. Earl Anderson
33698 Weld County Road 47
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On June 13, 1979, I have scheduled the Kenneth Anderson dog kennel
matter before the Board of County Commissioners to inform them of
our findings during our field inspection in February of 1979.
I would greatly appreciate your presence at said hearing if it would
be at all possible for you to attend. If you will not be able to
attend, I would like to -takeladvantage of the opportunity to present
to the Commissioners a proposed dog kennel guideline which you are
preparing. Specifically, the June 13 Board of County Commissioners
Hearing will be in regard to' Kenneth and Audrey Anderson' s dog kennel
and an remarks that y ' you make at that time relating directly to their
kennel would be highly respected by the Commissioners as well as
advantageous in leading into; the proposal for dog kennel guidelines to
be incorporated into our Zoning Resolution in the future. In other
words, the Kenneth Anderson dog kennel violation can be used to set
an example for how easily overcrowded kennels can occur with the
current special use requirements.
If you will be unable to attend this meeting, I will understand as I
am aware of your busy schedules. I would, therefore, like to request
that you submit the proposedlguidelines prior to- the 13th for my use
at the meeting if you cannot: plan to attend. I will anxiously be
waiting to hear from you.
cayerel I
I
Cath . Carter '• ,
Zoni g Inspector •
csd I '
P•S. I will try to inform you of a-more -accurate- time as soon as I
know where on the agenda this matter is set. '
,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
FT GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
iJ
i 4,11
ki
ts } r''
S o- .
COLORADO
I
June 4, 1979
. I
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson
17164 I-25 Access Road E
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: Zoning Violation #104-78:28 - Pt. WzSW* Section 2, T3N, R68W
•
Dear Mr: and Mrs. Anderson:
As you will recall when you were at the Board of County Commissioners'
Hearing on February 7, 1979, it was the decision of the Board to have
an evaluation of your dog kennel made by what was agreed to be an
expert opinion,
I have avoided scheduling this matter to be heard before the Commis-
sioners again as I am aware this is a very busy time of year for you,
but feel that I cannot put ' t off any longer. I• have, therefore,
scheduled this matter for the County Commissioners' hearing on Wednesday,
June 13, 1979, to submit my evaluation to the' Board. This meeting will
be held in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County
Centennial Center, 915 10thlStreet, Greeley, Colorado, starting at
9: 00 a.m. I will try to inform you by phone if the agenda for the
above hearing is a lenghty one; Hopefully, this can be pinned down to
a relatively specific time for you to be present. Your presence or a
representative would be helpful to the Board if they have any questions
in regard to this matter. I
Thank you for your anticipated '
cooperation. I look forward to peeing
you at that time. -ii
erely,
Cath E. Carter
Zoni g Inspector I
•
csd
e
a
- -
RECEI T FOR CER IED MAIL-3(k (plus postage) I
2 TO POSTMARK '
OR DATE
- TAN ,NO3
.,"P,O E A 0131P"RffO@ '
! ,. \r
a �' OPTIONAL SERVICES FORp A0DITI0XAL FEES ��\i.;'15 r I
N RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... 154 I
N RECEIPT (With deiivery.to addressee only 654 ,_
7. .Shows to wham,date and whore delivered.. 354 fir- ,
'SERVICES '' _ ' '"With delivery to addressee only 854 t+, , 21
s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 504
Q c�. = ,
SPECIAL DELIVERY.(extra'fee-requi red) "1 I
Zi c PS Form- • ' •NO INSURANCE COVERAGE'PROVIDED -a (See other side) i
Apr. 1971 3800 -
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL P ccpo:reaa o-+eo-y+s i
r
4_._.
,p, * SENDER: Complete items 1,2,and 3.
Add your address in the"RETURN TO"space on i
greverse. I
I; I. The following service is requested (check one).
> 0 Show to whom and date delivered _4
I m ❑ Show to whom,date,and address of delivery -4
a, 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY
Show to whom and date delivered _4
0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY.
Show to whom,date,and address of del ivery.S—
(CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
ARTICL RESSED
/e4( _..1-',..2 nLPl/�a„/ c
9 A & i s
Z 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTIOl:
m REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
in
5 7r9s _ _ /
m ��{'-i(Y=,IJ(///�ddd»'�C//
-1
ga I (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent)
m
•- ° I have received the article described above.
5-4
SIGNATUR ❑ Addressee
//�� 0 Authorized agent
e' 3 >2Lszt
a n4e`0l -'�.T s`�• DATE OF DELIVERY ARK or/
ar
to iv
Fz 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested)
a
0 ro 4y�F O
m
-4 n ✓bv t
" 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CCO,ERK'S
.. a • OVIT LS
w. D C
Rd /)T4 a 47/7 9 ,F/ t
i
. 1
SUMMARY SHEET
For
February 7, 1979 Board of County Commissioners' Hearing
Kenneth L. and Audrey J. Anderson RED . 'Expansion of dog kennel
VI-104 :78 :28 I without proper 'permit
The property on which the violation is occurring is described as Pt . V"?z
SW* Section 2, T3N, R68W of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado. The
property is located approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of Mead, im-
mediately adjacent to I-25 and 1/2 mile south of County Road 38.
The zoning violation is an expansion of a dog kennel without the 'proper
special use permit in the Agricultural Zone District , which is a viola-
tion of Section 3. 3 E of the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
On December 18, 1978, a letter was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson
informing them that this inspector had received information that an
expansion of Special Use Permit #157 dated June of 1972, could possibly
be occurring. Said letter furither requested Mr. and Mrs. Anderson to
contact me within ten days of 'ithe date of the letter .
On December 20, 1978, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were in my office to discuss
the matter. At said meeting they wrote an explanation of what is present-
ly occurring on the property tlo include an itemization of the number of
dogs presently existing. A copy of said letter is attached for your
reference. Based on the conversation and the letter which Mr. and Mrs.
Anderson prepared and Mrs. Anderson signed, a violation notice was
personally handed to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson at this time. On December 29,
1978, a violation notice was placed on the property retroactive to the
December 20, 1978 date when the violation notice was personally handed to
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. An appointment was scheduled with Tom Honn, Zoning
Administrator, for January 4, 11979 to discuss the necessity for an ad-
ditional special use permit .
When Mr. and Mrs. Anderson met with Tom Honn on January 4, 1979, there was
some question as to clarification of the number of dogs Mr. and Mrs.
Anderson could have based on the Planning Commission Hearing and Board of
County Commissioner Hearing ini June of 1972. It was decided that this .
inspector would listen to said tape and prepare a summary for Tom Honn' s
review. A copy of my inspection report of January 4, 1979 reveals the
contents of said tapes and is attached for your reference. On January 23,
1979, a letter was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson explaining what was re-
vealed in the tapes and further informing them that the Department of
Planning Services had determined that the violation of the expansion of
the special use permit for they dog kennel was still occurring. Mr. and
Mrs. Anderson were given until February 6, 1979 to contact the Department
of Planning Services setting forth their intent in this matter.
On January 29, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson came in to see me in reply to
my January 23, 1979 letter to them. A lengthy discussion ensued concern-
ing the discrepancy in the number of dogs Mr. and Mrs. Anderson could
personally have of their own versus the number of dogs they presently
have over and above their own. The Andersons do not feel that they have
q " 1
enlarged or expanded the actual dog kennel facility, but have only tempo-
rary expanded the number of dogs, far above the total of 40, due to
inclimate weather that Weld County has been experiencing recently. As
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson explained to me, these very expensive animals
($2, 500. 00 per dog) cannot be ,trained when the weather is as cold as it
has been. For this reason, the animals they are training for owners in
Florida /cannot be shipped according to schedule. As soon as the weather
warms up„they will complete the training of several animals and ship
them to their Florida owners. ,
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson provided me with a copy of the sketch plan which was
originally submitted with their Special Use Permit #157 in June of 1972
and provided me with an overlay which shows that even though the facility
is not exactly the same as originally intended, it has not expanded or
been enlarged beyond the boundary specifically set forthkon the plot plan.
A copy of said sketch plan is being circulated for your reference.
After conferring with the zoning staff, it was determined that Mr. and
Mrs. Anderson should be allowed to discuss this situation with the Board
of County Commissioners.
It is the determination of the Department of Planning Services that the
violation still exists based on the fact that the number of dogs far
exceeds the limit which is set forth in the Board of County Commissioners'
Resolution dated June 21, 1972. It is apparent that this is a matter of
intrepretation of the original special use permit issued by the Board of
County Commissioners in 1972. It should be noted that letters have been
submitted and signed by several surrounding property owners. These letters
show no objections to Mr. and: Mrs. Anderson's present operation.
tti
TRANSCRIPTION July 26 , 1979
EXCERPT FROM HEARING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JUNE 12, 1972
TIME : 10 : 00 A. M.
DOCKET # 25
TAPE #40
CHAIRMAN GLENN BILLINGS : You spoke about the dogs Mrs . Andersen
You said that they were considered dogs only when they were
adults, your not talking about thirty adult dogs your talking
about approximately a total of thirty, as a maximum pups and
dogs.
MRS. ANDERSON: And dogs yes.
CHAIRMAN GLENN BILLINGS: Thank you. Is there anyone else in
the room who would like to give testimony in favor of granting
this application? Would you give us your name please?
THE FOLLOWING PICTURES WEPE TAKEN BY
ZONING INSPECTOR , CATHY F . CARTER. ON
FEBRUAPY 61 1979 AT APPROXIMATELY
2 : 15 P . M .
SHOOTING FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE KENNEL JUST OFF I - 25 FRONTAGE ROAD
LOOKING SOUTHEAST SHOWING THE PUNS AND
MAIN KENNEL BUILDINGS IN BACKGROUND .
THIS IS THE VIEW PASSERS-BY SEE FROM
I - 25. .
.. -
/, 4 A
1 i G
a 4.
Silvirrrinint
1411 „Li : -e -asal Logi r .. 1.4
• t.
i
1,. w
- .�' 117..
SHOOTING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF KENNEL
LOOKING SOUTHEAST SHOWING FOUR OUT- SHOOTING FROM THE ANDERSON ' S DRIVE-WAYBLDGS . EACH OF WHICH CONTAINS AT LEAST WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO I -25
ONE DOG . ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE FRONTAGE ROAD FACING EAST SHOWING LOCK-
PART OF THE ORIGINAL SKETCH PLAN SUB- ED GATE AND THE MH ANDERSONS LIVE IN .
" Tr" 'D WITH SUP 1 .. , ' ` 7m 1q72 . KENNEL IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THIS MH .
I T__ ___L__
._
z-.4
i . _
1
___
______
_. ... _ .
. _ __ _ _
. -
, _ . _ _
is _ ...7111111rt 1 a• _.e.� > '� ; L a _ s y Win+
4 A .4.-4, MIEN
lr iTpr r- ) _ CID.
Ala al brt
L _ ___,........ _ __ __ ,..n. ,.
... _ _
, _ __._ .......
, ,. .
, , _ :it ,
k ..
. -Nit.
SHOOTING FROM NORTH SIDE OF KENNEL 1
LOOKING SOUTHEAST SHOWING 4 DOGS APPPDX
6 MONTHS OF AGE . THE MAIN KENNEL
BUILDINGS ARE IN THE BACKGROUND . 1
t - - _
we
- • .2- •too.l,... f `•
ap i .
. �-
:"
SHOOTING FROM NORTH SIDE OF KENNEL
LOOKING SOUTHWEST SHOWING 5 DOGS
APPROX . 8 MONTHS OF AGE . HIGHWAY I - 25
FRONTAGE ROAD IS IN THE BACKGROUND .
li
._ ....„ ;... a __.: .._ .. A a_
; .R.:ewer: -
lir
f i _ ' .., _. -__ cori_ NB irs:.c 'WiSPact i ANSIV rtk
er
FITOOT I NG FROM NORTH SIDE OF KENNEL
LOOKING STRAIGHT SOUTH SHOWING F
DOGS APPROXIMATELY FOUR ( 4 ) MONTHS OF
AGE .
INSPECTOR'S REPORT
Name: Kenneth Anderson No : V-104:78:28
Legal Description of Property: IPt. W- SW* Section 2, T3N. R68W
Date: December 20, 1979 Time: Unknown
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson came in thl, office to see me and wrote down the
approximate dogs they now have. '(See attached letter signed by Mrs. Anderson. )
Violation notice was issued to them personally. Approintment was set with
Torn Honn for January 4, 1979. •
Zonipg Inspector
Note: Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
4� 'INSPECTOR"'S REPORT
Name: Kenneth Anderson No: VI-104:78: 28
Legal Description of Property : IPt. IIPtSW1 Section 2 T3N, RS 8W
Date: 2/6/79 Time : 2:15 PM
I arrived at the Anderson' s dog kennel for the purpose of taking pictures and
having Mr. Anderson show me around the facility. There were anywhere ':rfrom
1 to 7 or 8 greyhound dogs in all of the runs. Pictures were taken of some
of the greyhound dogs ranging in! age from 4 months to 8 months of age. Mr.
Anderson took me inside of the sheds and showed me at least 20 to 40 dogs that
are in shipping crates. Mr. Anderson said that 20 of these dogs were ready
to be shipped when the weather wall allow the final training stage. I must
have seen approximately 100 greyhound dogs ranging in age from newborn to 18
months of age. At least 85 to 9:0% of all the dogs located in the dog kennel
are kept inside of the sheltered heated sheds, and are only let out for their
daily runs.
These animals, in my opinion, appear to be healthy and extremely well taken
care of.
It should be noted that both Mrj and Mrs. Anderson have shown extreme concern
and cooperation in this matter. '
Zonin nspector
Note: Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
III INSPECTOR'S REPORT
Name: Kenneth Anderson No: VI-104 :78:28
Legal Description of Property: It . SYzSW4 Section 2, T3N, R68W
Date: January 29, 1979 Time: 1:15
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were in my 'office to discuss with me their interpretation
of expansion or enlargement of a : special use permit . They feel that they have
not expanded or enlarged the actual facility. Theyvfiirther feel that the dogs
that belong to them have not exceeded the 40 dog limit . The dogs that have
exceeded the limit do not belongito them and 'are considered puppies .according .
I
to greyhound dog regulations. They left with me letters signed by surrounding
property owners indicating said property owners have no problem with the
special use permit now in existende. It was decided that because of the
discrepancy in intrepretation of; the limit of dogs. that Mr. and Mrs. Anderson
will wait until I schedule the violation in front of the Board of County Com-
missioners at which time they will be heard on the matter and allow the Board
of County Commissioners to make a decision as to how this violation should be
pursued. Procedural letters will be sent as required. The matter will be set
in front. of.'the Board of County Commissioners as soon as feasible. Mr . and
I
Mrs. Anderson want it noted that: due to the inclimate weather, they have not
been able to train the/ dogs to be shipped to owners in Florida. Because of
the fragile nature of these expensive dogs ($2500. 00 per dog) , 41ey cannot run
on frozen ground. Therefore, they have more dogs than usual . They do not feel
they should be penalized because of weather beyond their control.
giaLltat...e----
oning nspector
Note : Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
INSPCTOR"'S REPORT
Name: Kenneth Anderson No : V-104:(78:28
Legal Description of Property: Pt. WzSW4 Section 2, T3N, R68W
Date: January 4, 1979 Time : 1: 00
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson met with Tom Honn. It was decided the tapes would have
to be listened to from the Planning Commission Hearing and Board of County
i
Commissioners hearing to determine if there was discussion regarding determi-
nation of puppy age versus adult dog age when 40 dog limit was set .
1/15/79-I have reviewed both tapes and find that in the Board of County
Commissioners tape of 6/12/72, khe Andersons refer to the permit as a Land
Use Permit. The Commissioners' , file is set up as LUP #749. The Andersons
repeatedly refer on tape to the : raising of 30 maximum total pups meaning—L4
months of age or younger. Mr. Anderson argued that they were applying for a
LUP and he could not find any regulations in the Weld County Zoning Resolution
regarding puppies. The Planning and Zoning representative at the meeting
referenced the Weld County Zoning Resolution - Uses Permitted in the A-
Agricultural Zone District (B) Cattle feedlots and the raising of sheep,
swine, rabbits and other animal's for commercial use subject to the additional
� I
requirements of Section 6.1 (5)lof this Resolution. Chairman Glenn Billings
specifically asked Mrs. Anderson "Mrs Anderson, when you spoke about the dogs
i I
you said they were considered dogs only when they are adults. You're not
talking about 30 adult dogs? You are talking about 30 as the approximate
total maximum of pups and dogs,, aren't you?
Mrs. Anderson agreed it was 30 total dogs and pups. The matter was taken
eLte
Zoni4 Inspector
Note : Attach this sheet to the "complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
INSPCTOR'S REPORT
Name: Kenneth Anderson No : V-104: 78: 28
Legal Description of Property: Pt . WZSW; Section 2, T3N, R68W
Date: December 29, 1978 Time : 2: 30 pm
A violation notice was placed on the property this date with the comment
written thereon that "this violation notice is retroactive to 12/20/78 when
you were in my office. " g-441Zoning�nspector
Note : Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning
violation.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE 1303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
January 31, 1979
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson
17164 I-25 Access Road E
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: Pt. WISW* Section 2, T3N, R68W
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:
This is to inform you that the Weld County Board of County Commis-
sioners is scheduled to consider the zoning violation occurring on
your property described as Pt . WlSW* Section 2, T3N, R68W, on Wednes-
day, February 7, 1979. If necessary, the Board of County Commissioners
will recommend that the County proceed with legal action to remedy the
violation of the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
This meeting will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Hearing
Room located on the first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915
10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, starting at 9: 00 a.m.
Your presence or a representative would be helpful to the Board members
if they have any questions in considering this violation.
This office is ready to be If any assistance in clarifying or answering
questions concerning this violation. Please feel free to contact me if
you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Cathy Carter
Zoning Inspector
.\
CEC/csd
P. S. I will try to inform you by phone if the agenda for the above
date is a lengthy agenda or not. Hopefully this can be pinned -
down to a relatively specific time for you to be present .
lip
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
NI . ®
COLORADO
January 23, 1979
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson
17164 I-25 Access Road E
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: Zoning Violation
Pt . WISW$ Section 2, T3N, R68W
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:
After reviewing the tapes of both the Planning Commission Hearings
and Board of County Commissioners' Hearings, it is revealed in said
tapes that you be allowed 40 dogs total. In the Board of County
Commission tape, Chairman Glenn Billings specifically asked Mrs.
Anderson if her references to dogs meant only adult dogs or if she
meant a total of 30 to include pups and dogs. Mrs. Anderson' s reply
was 30 total dogs and pups. The Board of County Commissioners acted
by taking the matter under advisement and on June 21, 1972, a Reso-
lution was forwarded to youisetting forth a total of not more than
40 dogs.
• It is, therefore, the decision of the Department of Planning Services
that the violation issued on your above referenced parcel still exists
and an application for expansion of the Special Use Permit for a dog
kennel must be submitted to this office.
On or before February 6, 1979, please contact me regarding your in-
tentions in this matter.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
a4i
Cathy E. Carter
Zoning Inspector
CEC/csd
I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
E.1
1 . ' ''r_, , i ;. ,.„
r •
COLORADO
January 10, 1979
II
Audrey Anderson
17164 Interstate 25
Access Road. East
Platteville, Colorado 80651
Dear Ms. Anderson :
In regard to your request of January 9 , 1979, concerning the return
of two documents which you. r,ecently left in our office, we find
we are unable to distinguish which specific documents you need
returned.
We apologize for the delay in getting these documents sent to
you. If you will contact our office again with more specific
information regarding the documents, we will make every attempt
to see that they are returned to you as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
D
Shirley A. —Phillips
Planning Commission Secretary
/sap
i
it
_ S S
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
I1 GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
O �
COLORADO
December 26, 1978
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson ;
17164 I-25 Access Road E
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: Pt . WlSW$ Section 2, T3N, R68W
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:
The uses on the above described property are being considered as
zoning violations of Section( 3. 3 .E. of the Weld County Zoning Reso-
lution. The expansion of the dog kennel is not allowed under Special
Use Permit #157.
We are requesting your cooperation in this matter by contacting this
office by January 2, 1979, to inform us of your intentions in correct-
ing this zoning violation. Failure to do this will result in this
office scheduling this violation before the Weld County Planning Com=
mission and Board of County Commissioners for their cpnsideration and
action.
This office is ready to be of any assistance in clarifying or answering
questions concerning this matter. We look forward to hearing from you
soon.
Very truly yours,
Cathy . Carter
Zoning Inspector
P. S. As we discussed in our meeting of December 20, 1978, the above
letter is forwarded to you as a matter of procedure. Your ap-
pointment with me is considered a reply to the January 2, 1979
contact date written on the violation notice issued to you on
December 20, 1978. As I 'm sure you understand, your scheduled
appointment with Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator, on January 4,
1979, will be an essential meeting. Thank you, sincerely, for
your immediate concern in this matter.
.
•
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
• I PHONE (303)3564000 EXT.404
915 10TH STREET
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
December 18, '1978
I
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Anderson
17164 I-25 Access Road E
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: SUP 157 - Dog Kennel
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:'
It has recently been brought to my attention that a possible expan-
sion of the dog kennel on your property is occurring. After making
a field inspection, I find the need to discuss the situation with
you.
Would you please write me at the aforementioned address within ten
(10). days of the date of this letter, setting forth the existing
facilities of the dog kennel operation in relation to the sketch
plan submitted with Special Use Permit 157, as well as the present
number of dogs located thereon.
You may wish to take advantage of this opportunity to allow this
office to be of service to you with yourr facility and any future
intent you may have.
I
I am aware that this request, at this time of the year, is burden-
some for you, but feel sure' your anticipated cooperation will be
advantageous to us both.
Sincerely,
Cathy . Carter
Zoning Inspector
CEC/csd
Rita Jane Moore
17386 125 Aenn rc Road East
Platteville, Colo. 80651
ao ad cm s may &oxcatc
i5 A diti � ac.V Q�
�v nzG& 610-64) -60 -61Aftct ‘SI MAL-,
4�t RUC`t� laas bekx. fra9- kt Ud-e -ct u..6-
Germ° qwt u , 4o `uW gt`Loads ah Itco J
Si/t-bu11c, 910.4141-d- d- 616 it l[4-C_
5c a-ap,4 d - z y a &taletys
mss. u -' : ,
C
AUDREY J. ANDERSEN
GREYHOUND ACRES
1716 1-25 ACCESS ROAD EAST
PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO 80651
oOff--e-e4-7-7,14i ,2-0) / y 7 F
.l-Jct
t%YwmD�c�t / -st tie-,--o --the,
jiu.L ,.a-Lw� � ✓ -..�
`74a'2r . " A
ape? acid
d
- eeAea
� � � i Bdi a
1 H
•
/4, P/_ d--24/--a-41 -L,-*— c%. ii-r/- az-,-&- -ulni_ 1f. _,P.-/_5__7_.- - - - -
,,,,,./.44....90,.„../_ ,_ :77-1-'(-6
p xD
.tee-'4Y _ l - e,----
e_2"..÷Len_44_,:terni_x_
-
_ _A-_E/zeeaz4L&- a To_c!e, !,-_
{
- -- �'--araa_ -b.oG_5 --I - 3- - - ______------ __ -- -- -- -- - - ---- --- --
-- --_._•___ed_d o_D- /f T✓_2o_a2 —o2_S — — — —
3 ___ _p0 Ps-_ -X 3_- 0_ .,9 Y_s __To --01_m.ow_Til5) - --- -- -- -- --- -- - - •
-
- - - __ n__-/-0_. Or9- 7--E- j/ - - - - - -- -
-- ---g_' -7-a-- -0-st_LE -- 6S —
ST - 12 v e 5 - -o&o F,(__ Jy__.//j.o.n/_z'H-S---7-O-- -,LF,2.v--F' --7-lie -pn2n 7
- _, T -/6-_//'j_o_n) re/ g- c- --- /9-6 E - -- - ------ - --- - - -
a9 . a d /9_TE _— 0;9
) -1-1A-e-2-.. 16-1-1-11- ate-
I
Hello