HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112177 HEARING CERTIFICATION
RE: VIOLATIONS OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE -ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTION
A public hearing was conducted on August 9, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Sean P. Conway, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Tonya Disney
Assistant County Attorney, Stephanie Arries
Planning Department representative, Bethany Salzman
Planning Department representative, Peggy Gregory
Building Inspection, Frank Piacentino
The following business was transacted:
At the request of Planning staff, Commissioner Conway moved to refer the following matters back to
the Department of Planning Services; ZCV #1100040, Edward and Kimberly Brehon, and
ZCV#1100041, Todd and Rhonda Amen. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, and it carried unanimously.
I hereby certify that a public hearing was conducted to consider whether to authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with legal action against the individuals named for violations of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance. Cases were heard as follows:
ZCV#0900341 -STROH: Bethany Salzman, Department of Planning Services, presented the case
report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of
the Weld County Code, as detailed in staff's case summary. Ms. Salzman stated Lester Stroh did
visit the Greeley Planning Office on June 22, and June 23, 2011. Mr. Stroh was expected to be at
today's hearing; however, he is currently not in attendance. Staff has discussed the matter with
Mr. Stroh. Ms. Salzman stated the mobile homes are still not being utilized for the dairy, further
stating, Mr. Stroh indicated he does have the dairy rented to an individual; however, as of yesterday
the inspection showed there are still not any cows on the property. Ms. Salzman stated Mr. Stroh
indicated because he is renting the main home out, he would like to keep one of the mobile homes
in the event he would like to move back onto the property. Ms. Salzman stated she explained to
Mr. Stroh the mobile homes have to be an accessory to the farm, she further stated Mr. Stroh really
only would like to keep the mobile homes on the property because they are his; therefore,there has
been no resolution of the matter. Staff is recommending this matter be referred to the County
Attorney's Office for immediate legal action.
Commissioner Conway stated the dairy will need at least 60,000 dairy cattle. Commissioner
Conway believes the probability of Mr. Stroh having a lessee is higher this year than it would have
been last year. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman stated the dairy has not been
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
�- 1
-1 I Page 1 PL0824
functioning for approximately six years. She further stated Mr. Stroh provided staff with an individual
named Rex who is interested in leasing the dairy; however, there has not been any further contact
with Mr. Stroh or the potential lessee.
Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Commissioner Rademacher stated the County supports the dairies to house more cattle and
Mr. Stroh could have benefitted in this matter by being present today and providing the plans he has
for future dairy work on the property and who would be conducting the work.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman stated the last communication with Mr. Stroh
was June 23, 2011 and there has been no resolution in the matter. She further stated staff stressed
to Mr. Stroh the importance of him being at today's hearing.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to refer ZCV #0900341 against Lester Stroh to the County
Attorney for immediate legal action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it
carried unanimously.
BCV#0900081 -OLINGER: Peggy Gregory, Department of Planning Services, presented the case
report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of
the Weld County Code, as detailed in staffs case summary. Ms. Gregory stated certified mail was
sent July 20, 2011; however, a return receipt has not been received. She further stated she spoke
to Craig Olinger on the phone, August 3, 2011, at which time he stated he and his wife are out of
town much of the time for business, hauling oil in Texas, so he may not have been home to receive
the mail. Ms. Gregory stated Mr. Olinger was issued a permit for a 7,000 square foot pole building in
2006, with an extension being issued which also expired with no further inspections conducted
Ms. Gregory further stated three additional permits were submitted with no inspections completed,
and during her conversation with Mr. Olinger, he stated he and his wife will be in town for a couple of
weeks, at which time they will go to the Building Inspection office to apply for another permit. Staff
recommends this matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office but delay legal action for 30
days.
Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer BCV #0900081 against Craig and Rhonda Olinger to the
County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until
September 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for the property owner to submit a permit application to
the Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it
carried unanimously.
BCV #1000146 - ACME INVESTMENTS, LLC/CARDENAS: Ms. Gregory presented the case
report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of
the Weld County Code, as detailed in staff's case summary. Ms. Gregory stated a permit
application for a sign; was submitted January 26, 2010, however, the permit was never issued and
the plan review expired. Ms. Gregory further stated a new permit application was submitted on
November 29, 2010, and was issued, and the sign has been installed; however, an inspection was
never completed. She further stated an application was submitted August 5, 2011, and is being
processed by the Building Department. Staff has made arrangements with the property owner,
ACME Investments, LLC, to have the inspections scheduled, and the permit will be sent with the
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 2 PL0824
inspector at that time. With the knowledge of the matter being resolved, Staff is recommending this
matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office but delay legal action for 30 days.
Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer BCV #1000146 against ACME Investments, LLC, to the
County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until
September 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for the permit application to be processed by the
Department of Planning Services and delivered to the property owner at the time of final inspection.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long, and it carried unanimously.
BCV#1100058-TREJO: Ms. Gregory presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the
case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staff's case summary. Ms. Gregory stated a permit for an addition to the existing manufactured
home was issued in November, 2009; an extension was also approved for this permit which has
since expired, she further stated the last inspection that was conducted was on November 2, 2010;
however, at that time there was nothing ready to be approved by the inspector. Staff is
recommending this matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for immediate legal action.
Ms. Gregory clarified for the Board which building was the addition to the property and which
building was previously permitted and approved to be on the site.
Jervano Marquez, translator for Benjamin Trejo, property owner, stated Mr. Trejo does understand
he took longer than he expected to complete the work, at which time the permit expired. He further
stated when he did start to do the work, he completed the work before the inspectors were able to
meet to complete the inspection; however, he did leave some panels open for the inspector to see
what work was done. Mr. Trejo stated he understands the inspectors would like all the panels of
sheet rock to come down in order for the inspection to be completed, but feels this is a waste of
materials and would like some suggestions on how they could salvage what is already done so they
are not spending more money and time on the project.
Frank Piacentino, Building Inspection, stated a site inspection was conducted November 2, 2010,
which stated 75% of the work was covered,there was no access to the crawl space,the rafters were
unable to be inspected due to the sheet rock that was placed on the ceiling, the sheet rock and the
floor decking were installed in the wrong direction, there was no sheeting on the exterior, only hard
board paneling, the framework was built with inferior lumber, the site plan for the addition is being
constructed without a permit, the site is not ready for inspection, and the inspector is seeking
information. Dennis Renley, who is the inspector, suggested Mr. Trejo contact Ms. Gregory to set
up a meeting with the Board.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Piacentino stated according to Mr. Renley, Mr. Trejo
needed to remove some paneling to view the remainder of the framing. In response to
Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Piacentino stated without visiting the site himself he is unable to comment at
this time as to what needs to be done in order to do the final inspection.
Mr. Trejo stated they are trying to find a way to not have to remove all the sheet rock panels
because it would be such a waste, and in response to Mr. Trejo, Chair Kirkmeyer stated she would
not think they would need to remove them all; however, the inspector will need access to the crawl
space and some of the panels will still need to be removed. Mr. Trejo stated they are willing to do
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 3 PL0824
what they need to do in order to resolve the violation. Mr. Piacentino stated once a new permit is
issued another site inspection can be done to review what needs to be done.
Chair Kirkmeyer suggested the Board refer this matter back to the Department of Planning Services
and asked Mr. Piacentino to work with Mr. Trejo to figure out the most cost efficient way to complete
what needs to be done in order to be able to complete the inspection.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to refer BCV #1100058 against Benjamin Trejo back to the
Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it
carried unanimously.
ZCV#1100060 -NAVA: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the
case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staffs case summary. Ms. Salzman stated certified mail was sent July 27, 2011, and the return
receipt has not been received. Ms. Salzman stated yesterday, Monday,August 8, 2011, she went to
the site to both inspect and post the sign, and while there she was met by Alfredo Nava who she
then presented the sign to, who also stated he would be present at today's hearing. Ms. Salzman
stated the violation is for the presence of commercial vehicles in a residential subdivision.
Ms. Salzman stated an application could be submitted through the zoning permit for one commercial
vehicle; however, this would not benefit Mr. Nava because of him using his trucks to transport the
various items of produce in his commercial vehicles. She further stated as a result of the produce
being transported back and forth in the commercial trucks, there is trash and produce that is
discarded in the trash receptacle, which then sits for a week until it is picked up, and then puts off a
sour smell. Ms. Salzman stated the main complaint from the neighbors is the smell of the trash.
Ms. Salzman further stated the zoning permit for a commercial vehicle does not allow material to be
brought back to the site; it is solely for the vehicle to come and go from the site, not to store the
product. This permit would also only permit one commercial vehicle on the site. Ms. Salzman
stated she explained to Mr. Nava that if the permit application was to be approved he would only be
able to have one commercial vehicle, not both, and would not allow the product to be stored or
transported to and from the site. She further stated she is not sure what Mr. Nava's intent is to bring
the property into compliance due to him wanting to continue to store both commercial vehicles as
well as the produce on the site. Staff is recommending this matter be referred to the County
Attorney's Office but delay legal action for 30 days in order for Mr. Nava to decide to either remove
both commercial vehicles from the property, or submit an application for a permit to allow only one of
the commercial vehicles to remain on the site and remove the second commercial vehicle and all
produce.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman stated the total application fee would be
$113.50; being broken down as such; $75.00 for the application fee, and an investigation fee of
$37.50, once it goes before the Board. She further stated Mr. Nava would be allowed only one truck
if the permit, is in fact, approved.
Ben Nava, son and interpreter for Alfredo and Carmela Nava, property owners, stated he only has
the two trucks and they are not always parked on the property, only on Monday's and Tuesday's and
the rest of the week they have them parked at a site where they actually work from.
Chair Kirkmeyer clarified with Mr. Nava that he understands the County Code will not allow him to
have both of the commercial vehicles parked on the property at any time.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 4 PL0824
Mr. Nava stated when he bought the property, the station he sells from is right next to his house so
he can clean the trucks and load the fresh produce right there. He further stated the produce trucks
are his livelihood and if he cannot have them on his property to work from, he will not be able to
make a living. Mr. Nava stated he does not understand why he cannot have both trucks. Mr. Nava
further stated the neighbors do not know where their property lines are, due to people spreading
their possessions out further overtime. He stated the cars that are all parked on what looks like a
street is actually the alley behind the houses, and he does not feel he is parked illegally on his
property. Chair Kirkmeyer clarified the violation is not regarding the parking, it is for having two
commercial vehicles in the neighborhood which is zoned residential and is not an allowed use
according to the Weld County Code. She further stated Mr. Nava is allowed to apply for a Zoning
Permit for a Commercial Vehicle (ZPCV) which would allow the storage of only one commercial
vehicle; however, there is not any guaranty that he will be approved. Chair Kirkmeyer further stated
in addition to the commercial vehicles being parked at the site, there have been complaints about
the smell of rotting produce that sits in the dumpster for a week or more until it is removed. She
further explained if Mr. Nava is granted the ZPCV Permit, this would allow the vehicle to come and
go from the site; however, it does not allow the truck to be loaded with the produce when it returns to
the site.
Chair Kirkmeyer asked Ben Nava to explain to Mr. Nava that he can submit an application for one
ZPCV permit, knowing there is no guaranty he will be awarded the permit, the second commercial
vehicle cannot be kept on the property at any time, and he cannot bring produce back to the
property to be stored or put in the trash receptacle.
Ben Nava stated Mr. Nava said he believed he was okay because he had approval from the people
in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Garcia stated for the record in English and asked Ben Nava to again translate the
following for Mr. Nava. Commissioner Garcia stated the issue with the produce is not an issue with
the neighbors; it is a law that he cannot bring the produce back to the property and work out of the
truck. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Nava stated it was his understanding he needed to
have the approval from his neighbors to work from his property.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Salzman verified this violation was complaint
driven.
Ms. Nava stated he is going to apply for the one permit allowed for the one truck and figure out what
he will do with the other truck, and he will try to keep the truck clean for the neighborhood.
Victoria Bernel, neighbor, stated she gets along with Carmela Nava and Ben Nava; however, she
has had a few issues with Alfredo Nava. Ms. Bernel has asked Mr. Nava to keep the property clean
by keeping the trash picked up. She further stated Mr. Nava has one dumpster for all the trash;
however, there is more trash than the dumpster will hold which then spills over onto her property.
Ms. Bernel stated she has had to shovel trash back onto his property because it has spilled onto her
property. She further stated with all the trash that is kept on Mr. Nava's property, she has seen an
increase in rodents and flies, which she believes is a health hazard and violation. Ms. Bernel stated
Mr. Nava stores his produce in his garage and feels he should be inspected by the Health
Department. She stated Mr. Nava has a young granddaughter that was left in one of his commercial
vehicles alone while it was running and engaged the gears and the vehicle went across the street
and ran into one of the neighbor's houses. Ms. Bernel submitted photographs of Mr. Nava's
property to be labeled, "Exhibit A", as well as a piece of paper with a list of twenty-three neighbor's
names who have also complained to Ms. Bernel about the situation, and is labeled, "Exhibit B".
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 5 PL0824
Ms. Bernel stated she has spoken with Mr. Nava about his property and in response he has been
very rude and degrading to her.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Bernel stated the issue with the trash and the
communication with Mr. Nava started about seven years ago and has progressively gotten worse
over the years. She further stated in addition to the two commercial vehicles the Nava's also have
two additional personal vehicles, leaving no room for parking.
Chair Kirkmeyer clarified again for Mr. Nava that he can apply for the ZPCV permit which would
allow only one commercial vehicle, knowing he may not be granted the permit, and that the other
vehicle will need to be removed from the property,the produce and the trash on the property needs
to be cleaned up and removed from the property immediately, and the produce cannot be
transported back and forth from the property. Chair Kirkmeyer asked Mr. Nava if he is willing to
bring his property into compliance and asked how long he thought he would need to do so.
In response to Mr. Nava, Ms. Salzman stated he cannot have any product on the property.
Commissioner Garcia stated the neighborhood they live in is a residential neighborhood not a
commercial site; therefore, the business needs to be run from a commercial site.
In response to Mr. Nava, Commissioner Garcia stated if Mr. Nava does not get the ZPCV permit
granted, the commercial vehicle and all the produce must be removed from the property; however,
the family can continue to live at the residence. Commissioner Garcia stated the type of business
the Nava's are running would be an allowed use in an Agricultural Zoned area; however, because
they live in a residential zoned area, the business is not permitted.
Chair Kirkmeyer asked Mr. Nava if he can accomplish what is being asked of him within thirty days,
and Mr. Nava concurred.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to refer ZCV#1100060 against Alfredo and Carmela Nava to
the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until
September 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for the property owner to submit an application for a
Zoning Permit for a Commercial Vehicle to the Department of Planning Services, remove all trash
and produce from the property, as well as remove the second commercial vehicle from the property.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1100062-ALARCON: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to
the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staff's case summary. Ms. Salzman stated to bring the property into compliance, the double wide
mobile home will need to be permitted or removed from the property, further stating after spending a
substantial amount of time last week, it was discovered by staff that the mobile home is a 1968,
which is not allowed to be moved within the county, according to the Weld County Code. This
leaves Angelina Alarcon only one option, to have the mobile home removed from the property;
however, she will need a permit for this, and because of the year, a permit cannot be issued.
Ms. Salzman stated Ms.Alarcon stated she purchased the mobile home from Clayton Homes,which
when contacted by staff, informed them that they were not aware of the 1976 mobile home rule.
Ms. Salzman stated she has spoken to Frank Piacentino, Building Inspection, regarding this and he
told her he has had this discussion with them in the past on more than one occasion. Staff
recommends this matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office but delay legal action for 60
days to allow Ms. Alarcon time to make arrangements to have the mobile home removed from the
property; whether that is to have Clayton Homes remove it from the property,find someone to take it
out of state, or have it demolished.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 6 PL0824
Chair Kirkmeyer clarified with staff Ms. Alarcon purchased the mobile home from Clayton Homes
and they are claiming they do not know about the rule, and Ms. Salzman concurred.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated Ms. Alarcon cannot even get a permit to move the home at this point and
finds it very hard to believe that if Clayton Homes has been in business for several years they do not
know about the rule.
Angelina Alarcon, property owner, corrected her address for the record as 7345 Patrick Avenue,
Fort Lupton, Colorado. Ms.Alarcon stated she purchased the mobile home from Clayton Homes in
June, 2011, and closed on the sale at a title company located in the same building as US Bank on
10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. She further stated she purchased the mobile home for$11,000.00
and in the contract it stated Clayton Homes would put the mobile home together and tie it down.
She stated two days later Clayton Homes gave her $2,000.00 back, due to her not having any
building permits. The same day she went to the Engineering Department in Fort Lupton to arrange
to get the soil test, and anything else that she would need to have done, with an ending cost of
$1,700.00, and the work was just completed last week. Ms. Alarcon stated she was expecting to
receive rental income from this property and now she is discovering that she cannot have anyone
live in it. Ms. Alarcon stated she has come to the conclusion that she lost the $11,000.00 that she
used to purchase the mobile home, and has no other income at this time due to her battle with
cancer and going to school. Ms. Alarcon stated the mobile home has a new furnace and water
heater that is not going to do any good for anyone now. Ms. Alarcon stated she has gone to
Clayton Homes to explain to them she has to go in front of the Board of County Commissioners
because she is in violation, and they assured her she would be okay, and all she would need to do
is show them all of her paperwork. Clayton Homes continued to tell Ms. Alarcon they spoke with
Ms. Salzman and there is a way for her to keep the mobile home on the property. Ms. Alarcon
stated she is at a loss of what to do now, does she need something from the Board stating she will
not be granted a permit, or will she need to get a permit to have the mobile home demolished,which
will end up costing her more money. Ms. Alarcon stated she has also thought of going back to
Clayton Homes and asking if they would take the mobile home back in exchange for an upgraded
mobile home.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Alarcon stated this is her property which she was
hoping to have rental income from; however, this is not her primary residence.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman stated Ms.Alarcon's mobile home is a 1968, and the
County Code does not allow anything older than a 1976. Chair Kirkmeyer stated although
Clayton Homes claims to not know the County Code regarding the 1976 or older mobile homes,they
have had to have moved this particular mobile home more than once, and she finds it hard to
believe they are not aware of the code. Ms. Salzman stated when she spoke with Clayton Homes
yesterday they stated the home was permitted at one time and believed Ms.Alarcon should be able
to permit it now.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Piacentino stated there have been several permits that
have been rejected because of the same situation with Clayton Homes.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated Clayton Homes should not have even been able to move the mobile home
onto Ms. Alarcon's property, further stating Ms. Alarcon cannot even get a permit to move it off the
property, and it sounds like Ms. Alarcon has quite a bit invested into the home. She further stated
she believes Ms. Alarcon has a case against Clayton Homes; however, she cannot advise
Ms. Alarcon on that, nor can the Department of Planning Services, or the County Attorney's Office.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 7 PL0824
Chair Kirkmeyer would suggest the Board continue this matter to allow Ms. Alarcon time to seek
legal advisement through the District Attorney's Office.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Stephanie Arries, Assistant County Attorney, stated
there really is not a lot the County Attorney's Office can do in this matter. Chair Kirkmeyer
suggested they present Clayton Homes with a violation for moving the mobile home onto the
property and the Board concurred. Ms. Arries stated the most the County Attorney's Office can do
at this point is file an injunction against Clayton Homes so they can no longer move mobile homes in
Weld County, if the mobile home does not meet the guidelines of the Weld County Code. She did
state they can file an injunction that states, they cannot move any mobile home anywhere in Weld
County if it is pre-1976; however, because Clayton Homes is within the Evans city limits,there is not
much more the County Attorney's Office can do. She further stated if they do move any mobile
home after the injunction is filed they will then be in contempt of court and could ultimately go to jail,
depending on the judge's ruling.
Commissioner Conway stated Clayton Homes illegally moved the mobile home into Weld County
and that is a violation. He further stated it does not matter where the mobile home was stored, it is
that Clayton Homes actually moved the home into Weld County when the code specifically states no
mobile home pre-1976 can be moved anywhere in Weld County.
Commissioner Conway suggested the Board file an immediate injunction with Clayton Homes. He
further stated it is clear to him from today's testimony from Mr. Piacentino that this is not the first time
Clayton Homes has conducted business of this sort and there is an obvious pattern. He further
stated it seems Clayton Homes is not taking responsibility in this matter, by claiming they did not
know the rules of the code, but it is clear they should know. Commissioner Conway stated part of
the Board's job is to ensure protection to the public and believes by taking action against
Clayton Homes, many other citizens will be spared the anguish Ms. Alarcon is going through.
Mr. Piacentino stated he does not have documentation of previous phone calls he has received
claiming this has happened to others, and would be considered hearsay. He further stated although
there is no documentation, staff has spoken with Clayton Homes in the past regarding the same
situation they are dealing with today.
Ms. Arries stated because this violation hearing involves another party, she suggested the Board
conduct another violation type hearing against Clayton Homes in the near future to deal with those
specific issues. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Arries stated she is willing to take a
proactive action against Clayton Homes and at the least write a letter to them outlining what was
discussed today; further stating she suggest the Board set up a time to speak with Clayton Homes
and then determine which direction they would like to go with this matter.
In response to Ms. Alarcon, Ms. Arries stated she will have a copy of the resolution that she will be
able to present to Clayton Homes. Chair Kirkmeyer also suggesting getting Ms. Alarcon a copy of
the Weld County Code, the Statute or the Federal Requirements with regard to the 1976 rules and
regulations, which she would then be able to take and present to Clayton Homes, further stating at
that point Clayton Homes may decide to work something out with Ms. Alarcon instead of going
through legal action.
Commissioner Conway stated he would advise Ms. Alarcon to go to the District Attorney's Office
before she goes to Clayton Homes, which may be a motivator for them. He further stated the
District Attorney's Office will be able to direct Ms. Alarcon as to whether she has a case against
Clayton Homes or not and explain the options she has. Commissioner Conway stated anyone that
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 8 PL0824
is in the mobile home business knows the rules, and from anecdotal evidence presented today,this
is something that may have occurred in the past. He further stated he knows the Board will work
closely with the County Attorney's Office to ensure this does not happen to someone else.
Commissioner Conway stated the Board feels Ms.Alarcon is the victim in this matter and hopes they
can help facilitate a solution for Ms. Alarcon.
Commissioner Garcia stated Ms. Alarcon should speak with the District Attorney's Office, because
they handle criminal matters,which is one piece of the law;they also handle civil matters,which her
contract with Clayton Homes to purchase the mobile home would be considered a civil matter, as
well. Ms. Alarcon stated it was her hope that Clayton Homes would recognize something is wrong
and would be willing to help fix it; however, as of yet they have made no efforts.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman recommended continuing this matter for 60 days; to
give Ms.Alarcon time to seek legal counsel and hopefully get Clayton Homes to move on the matter
as well.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to continue ZCV #1100062 against Angelina Alarcon until
October 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for the property owner to present Clayton Homes with the
Weld County Code statute and Federal regulations regarding the moving of pre-1976 mobile homes
within the County, as well as time to seek legal counsel if necessary. The property owner's mobile
home that was purchased in June, 2011, needs to be removed from the property site. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it carried unanimously.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Commissioner Garcia stated there are a couple of things the Board
can do; one, the Board can proceed with a violation type process, which is typical, or, if the Board
wants to take a faster way, they can have them attend one of the Wednesday morning hearings,
such as a health case to discuss the matter.
Ms. Arries suggested they first send a letter out so there is a record they have contacted
Clayton Homes and ask that they communicate with the County Attorney's Office directly. She
further stated the County Attorney's Office could then see what Clayton Homes reaction is and then
possibly proceed with a violation. Chair Kirkmeyer stated she does not mind sending them a letter;
however,they have already had communication with staff and nothing has come of it,further stating,
in her mind a letter takes too long and it should have already been sent if that is what they were
going to do. Chair Kirkmeyer also asked Ms. Arries, along with the letter that is to be sent, that
Ms. Arries call them to inform them of the situation, further stating she would like to know what
Clayton Homes has to say about this matter. Ms. Alarcon stated the manager at Clayton Homes
name is Mike, who was also at the closing in June and never said anything about this being a bad
deal.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated before they file an injunction with Clayton Homes she would like to have
Ms. Arries write the letter, contact Mike at Clayton Homes to explain the situation, speak with
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and then schedule a work session to go over future plans they have
in this matter.
ZCV#1100083-MEZA: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the
case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staff's case summary. Ms. Salzman stated this violation is due to multiple animal units on the
property, and because the property is .4 acres, the property owners are only allowed two animal
units or fewer, depending on the type of animals. She further stated when the Sheriff's Office went
to the site on June 28, 2011;they seized 13 horses, and left six cows, eight goats,three sheep, and
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 9 PL0824
at least one chicken on the property site. Ms. Salzman stated during her inspection yesterday she
was able to see two goats; however, with the multitude of different types of screening around the
property she was not able to verify the amount of remaining animals units. She further stated
because the screening was not installed due to a noncommercial junkyard violation, Staff did not
regulate the screening; however, if it would have been installed because of a noncommercial
junkyard violation, the screening would not have been acceptable. Ms. Salzman stated because of
the small amount of acreage on this property, if the Meza's choose to keep the cows they will only
be allowed two, with no other animals. She stated this is a repeat violation, but she did not have
time to pull the other dates; however, she does know the other violations were for animal units as
well. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman stated if they choose to only keep one cow,they
can keep approximately ten sheep or goats, or a combination of both, not to exceed the ten. She
further stated because of the size of the lot the new code changes will not make any difference in
this matter.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman stated yesterday she spoke with
Gary Schwartz, Sheriff's Office, and he stated he would be going back to court today regarding this
matter. She further stated it is her understanding the bonds for the horses still have not been paid;
therefore, the horses are still in the custody of the County. Ms. Salzman stated Mr. Schwartz asked
if she would also mention that the manure on the site was three to four feet deep, which poses a
health safety concern.
Jose Meza Franco, property owner, Rosa Maria Meza, property owner, and Francisco Meza Franco,
translator, were all present and reside at 519 35th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Ms. Meza stated the horses that were taken are going to be left with the County because the bond
has not been paid and they do not have any intention of paying the bond, further stating they moved
all the cows from the property as well.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman stated with the .4 acres the Meza's can have a
combination of 20 sheep and goats if that is all they choose to keep. She further stated she would
like to do a physical inspection of the property to verify the amount of animal units that still remain on
the property. Her difficulty yesterday while conducting the inspection is that, without permission to
enter the property, she can only inspect from the road, and as the photographs show with the
screening, she did not have a good visual of the property.
Ms. Meza stated staff can inspect the property whenever they want to, and in response to
Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Meza stated there are a total of 10 goats and sheep on the property, with no
other animals. Commissioner Conway confirmed with the Meza's that there are no cows on the
property and the horses are not coming back, and they concurred.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman stated from the testimony given today the Meza's
could be in compliance; however, she would like to meet one of the Meza's at their property to do an
inspection and confirm the animals have been moved. Chair Kirkmeyer suggested a time be set
today to conduct an inspection on the property. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman stated
this is a repeat violation, with a reoccurrence of at least three times in the last ten years, all dealing
with animal units.
Commissioner Conway stated if the Meza's are willing to set up a time with Ms. Salzman to do an
inspection, and the animals have been removed, the violation would then been satisfied. Mr. Meza
stated he is willing to set a time for the inspection to be conducted by staff.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 10 PL0824
Commissioner Garcia suggested giving the Meza's 30 days to have an inspection conducted and if
everything is in order, the violation will then be closed.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer ZCV#1100083 against Jose Franco and Rosa Maria Meza to
the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until
September 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for a physical inspection of the property to be conducted
by the Department of Planning Services to verify there are no more than the allowed amount of
animal units on the property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long, and it carried
unanimously.
ZCV#1100048 -MEZA/GUADALUPE: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and
pursuant to the case file,this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as
detailed in staff's case summary. Ms. Salzman stated to bring the property into compliance, the
noncommercial junk yard consisting of mainly trash with some tires, wood and paneling shall be
removed; further stating screening is not an option for trash which is the majority of the
noncommercial junkyard. Ms. Salzman stated she has spoken with Maria Guadalupe Meza's
daughter, Adelena Mezajaro, 27123 7th Avenue, Gill, Colorado, who has been representing her
mother through phone calls with Staff. Ms. Salzman stated her understanding is, Ms. Meza works
full time, which only allows her to work on the clean up during day light hours after work, and she
normally gets home around 5:00 p.m. Ms. Salzman stated because this is also a repeat violation
staff will not grant additional time to continue this matter. Ms. Salzman further stated the previous
violations have gone to the courts for legal action. Staff would like to do additional inspections on
the property due to the previous Meza family violation heard today; to verify the animal units are not
being moved from one site to the other site until the violations are closed. Ms. Salzman stated
Ms. Meza needs to arrange for trash services at the site as well, further stating during the initial
phone conversation with Ms. Meza, she had stated she was not aware they could even arrange to
have trash service at the site. Staff is recommending this matter be referred to the County
Attorney's Office with a delay of legal action for 30 days to allow time to remove the trash from the
property.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Arries stated the last violation was brought into
compliance before legal action was taken.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Salzman stated the property is an old abandoned
railroad property with a mobile home sitting in the middle of the property, and the Meza's do own the
property.
Maria Meza, property owner, stated she would like to ask for more time to clean up the rest of the
property. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Meza stated if she could have 60 days instead of the
recommended 30 days she would be grateful, because she works all the time which makes it hard to
clean the property after work. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Meza stated she does
believe she can get the property cleaned and into compliance within the 60 days she is asking for.
Commissioner Rademacher stated he is not willing to give them the 60 days they are requesting due
to this being a repeat violation of at least three times. He further stated he might compromise and
suggest 45 days, but is also comfortable only giving the 30 days as recommended by Staff.
Commissioner Long stated he is also reluctant to give the 60 days. He believes they could ask
family and friends to help get the property cleaned within the recommended 30 days.
Commissioner Garcia stated he believes that because it is related to the previous violation heard
today he believes it should follow what was recommend by staff, and the previous motion for the
above violation of 30 days.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 11 PL0824
Ms. Meza stated the majority of the junkyard is due to the previous Meza family violation, which are
family members, and because they are the ones who left the trash and are unwilling to help with the
cleanup, she is asking for the additional time. Ms. Meza stated the other Meza family used to live on
the property and kept their animals there as well. She further stated she rented the front part of the
property to the previous Meza family and after they moved from the property they left all their trash
on her property. Ms. Mezajaro stated the only other family Ms. Meza has to help clean the property
is her brothers and sisters and they all either go to school or work as well, and do not have a lot of
additional time either.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated she is willing to give the requested 60 days to do the clean up; however, if
Ms. Meza comes before the Board again for the same violation, she will not be granting any time,
she will be recommending immediate legal action. Commissioner Long also stated due to extended
family not willing to help he would also be willing to give the requested 60 days.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV #1100048 against Juan Manuel Meza and
Maria Guadalupe to the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon
such referral until October 9, 2011, to allow adequate time for the property owners to remove the
noncommercial junkyard from the site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long, and it
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Conway understands the majority of the trash was created by the other Meza family
members; however, it still needs to be cleaned up and brought into compliance and that is why the
Board has granted the 60 days to do so. He further stated Ms. Meza needs to continue to keep the
property clean.
Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to have Staff monitor the site close to the 60 day period
to make sure the animal units are not being transferred back and forth, further stating the property
may be cleaned up within 15 days; however, he would like to utilize the entirety of the 60 days.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated Ms. Meza has 60 days to clean the property and to stay in compliance.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:17 a.m.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 12 PL0824
This Certification was approved on the 15th day of August, 2011.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:/� c ji x /� t:tiii 4/v A—
..414,
f%� C Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board J :
e
Sean P. C y, Pro-Tern Cl
Deputy Werk to the Boa
Wi F. Ga
APP % AS a : ci
\David E. Long
'C• Attorney s
d ��' Dougla ademach
i$61t4
CD#2011-8 e ?
W
♦...►-
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 9, 2011 2011-2177
Page 13 PL0824
Hello